Will the 26er ever rise from the ashes? - Page 2- Mtbr.com
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 201 to 382 of 382
  1. #201
    Ride what you like!
    Reputation: MattiThundrrr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    331
    Sorry! My mistake. I thought I was in the 26er forum, discussing wether or not 26 would rise from the ashes. Will 52 ever rise?
    The revolution starts now
    When you rise above your fear
    And tear the walls around you down
    The revolution starts here

  2. #202
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,786
    [QUOTE=J.B. Weld;14408833]I didn't say that shops carried antique stuff, most don't stock 52" solid rubber tires for those old high wheel bikes either.[/QU

    So well stocked shops still exist, but well stocked doesn't include "antiquated" 26" rims or QR hubs? It's only been 5 years since 26" was the main wheel size, and while QR hubs have been replaced for almost 10 now that doesn't change the fact that there are lots of bikes out there with old standards that need service. You can't have it both ways buddy. You want to argue that "well stocked shops still exist," but then you make excuses for shops not supporting standards that are only 5 years old? There was a time, and it really wasn't that long ago, when we never wondered if a shop could take care of us. Those days are gone. Gone like your sanity.

  3. #203
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    12,648
    Man, you guys are touchy, I guess that's how the term "retro grouch" came about.

    ^that's a joke, apparently my jokes are so lame I have to explain to them

    Anyway my posts were only half in jest. There are well stocked shops, I know this for a fact because I work in one. If people were clamoring for nice 26" 135mm qr wheels we'd definitely stock them if it were possible but as it is we just have basic ones that people occasionally buy for their kids or beater bikes.

    I don't think 26" will rise from the ashes any time soon but that's only my opinion.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  4. #204
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    3
    Biospace chain rings came back and they were a lot less popular than 26 inch wheels. lol I, for one will not let the 26ich wheel die. I am a father of 7 and those wheels are great for the smaller riders. I think they will always have a place somewhere in the market.

  5. #205
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,786
    Here's some interesting data just posted by vital:

    https://www.vitalmtb.com/features/Wh...y-Results,2787

    Notice the wheel size data. In 2012 most riders were buying 26 even more than 29, then of course 650b took off like wild fire, now 29 has passed 650b. 650 is on a downward trend much lower than 26 in 2102. So if this downward trend continues, what will the industry do to ramp up sales for smaller wheels? Or will the industry just let 29 take over the entire mainstream market?

  6. #206
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    217
    I think wheels will become bike size dependent in the end. It's already happening. GT avalanche for example, is a 29'er in larger sizes, and 650b in smaller sizes. Trek caliber 8 I looked at last year was the same. 26 would slot in on the very small to "big kid" kids sizes.

    People just need to get over the idea of one size fits all now. Why would a 5'0 tall woman try to ride a 29er that is more fit for a person 6'3? And why would someone 6'9 ride a 29er when a 32" wheel would fit better? (someone is already jumping on the giant wheels for giant people idea)

  7. #207
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,230
    Quote Originally Posted by slimat99 View Post
    It's sad, but we can't even count on shops to stock 26" j bends anymore. Times have changed.
    26" spokes for exactly what hub/rim/count/cross/butting combination?

    You sound like you are under the impression you can go in and just get a '26" spoke' and it's going to work for any 26" wheel,

    Yeah...no.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  8. #208
    Ride what you like!
    Reputation: MattiThundrrr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    331
    I posted this elsewhere too, but I think it is useful here too. 27.5 and 27.5+ size sales have fallen to where 26 was 6 years ago.
    Will the 26er ever rise from the ashes?-max_wheelsizetobuy2_236824.jpg
    Is 27 going out like 26 did, and if the standard becomes "obsolete", could that possibly contribute to a resurgence in 26? To me, if we have 2 sizes to choose from, it would make the most sense to spread em out to broaden the range.
    The revolution starts now
    When you rise above your fear
    And tear the walls around you down
    The revolution starts here

  9. #209
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,786
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    26" spokes for exactly what hub/rim/count/cross/butting combination?

    You sound like you are under the impression you can go in and just get a '26" spoke' and it's going to work for any 26" wheel,

    Yeah...no.
    Yes I am saying we used to be able to go into any shop and know they had spokes that would work. There's a 1 to 2mm window so it's not hard for a shop to carry every possible flange/rim combo length. The shop I worked at had a library of 26" j bends. There was no hub flange size or rim we couldn't work with. Now some shops aren't stocking 26" spokes period. Just to be clear I'm talking generic j bends, not straight pull or anything proprietary.

  10. #210
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,786
    Quote Originally Posted by MattiThundrrr View Post
    I posted this elsewhere too, but I think it is useful here too. 27.5 and 27.5+ size sales have fallen to where 26 was 6 years ago.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	max_wheelsizetobuy2_236824.jpg 
Views:	81 
Size:	97.5 KB 
ID:	1290993
    Is 27 going out like 26 did, and if the standard becomes "obsolete", could that possibly contribute to a resurgence in 26? To me, if we have 2 sizes to choose from, it would make the most sense to spread em out to broaden the range.
    I agree, 26 and 29 makes a lot more sense. The interesting thing about this data is the ratio of riders interested in 29 vs 650b is far more lopsided than 26 vs 29 before 650b. I guess a lot of that has to do with how crappy 29'ers were in 2012. It's just nuts that in 2012 80% of riders preferred 26" over 29, and in 2019 only 32% prefer 650b over 29.

  11. #211
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    98
    This graph is so interesting to see... 2012 seems to be the year when the industry decided to kill off the 26er. The way the graph behaves - it's clear that 27.5 was used to replace the 26er - you can see that the 26er and 27.5 graphs are corelated and show a drastic change in short amount of time, while the 29 graph shows a more organic change.
    The rapid drop in 26er sales coincided with a rapid rise in 27.5 sales, yet the difference between these 2 sizes is not so significant to warrant such rapid replacement of one by the other - unless the customers were forced to buy 27.5 by the mere fact that 26ers were unavailable. Drop in sales like that would normally not happen unless there was some sort of a major safety concern relating to a 26er - which there wasn't. What other explanation can there be for such rapid drop in sales of 26er that coincides with such rapid growth in 27.5 bikes?

  12. #212
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,786
    Quote Originally Posted by Emax View Post
    This graph is so interesting to see... 2012 seems to be the year when the industry decided to kill off the 26er. The way the graph behaves - it's clear that 27.5 was used to replace the 26er - you can see that the 26er and 27.5 graphs are corelated and show a drastic change in short amount of time, while the 29 graph shows a more organic change.
    The rapid drop in 26er sales coincided with a rapid rise in 27.5 sales, yet the difference between these 2 sizes is not so significant to warrant such rapid replacement of one by the other - unless the customers were forced to buy 27.5 by the mere fact that 26ers were unavailable. Drop in sales like that would normally not happen unless there was some sort of a major safety concern relating to a 26er - which there wasn't. What other explanation can there be for such rapid drop in sales of 26er that coincides with such rapid growth in 27.5 bikes?
    It's because the industry pulled the plug on 26 basically overnight. This graph isn't a reflection of actual sales, it's a survey of what people want to buy at the time. Of course very few said they were going to buy 26" after 2012. There were nearly no options at that point. I'm not saying the graph would look dramatically different if equal options had existed, but we can't say one way or the other. Add in the biggest marketing push we've ever seen, geo changes, new tires and wheels only available in 650b, and even hold outs like me bought 650b. The most interesting thing about this data to me is how few want to buy 650b in 2019 compared to 26 in 2012. While vital might not be the best gage for the market as a whole, it's a good representation of what experienced riders are interested in. Clearly 650b is less desirable in 2019 than 26" was in 2012. Not just by a little bit either. The industry will take note of this data.

  13. #213
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,963
    Quote Originally Posted by MattiThundrrr View Post
    I posted this elsewhere too, but I think it is useful here too. 27.5 and 27.5+ size sales have fallen to where 26 was 6 years ago.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	max_wheelsizetobuy2_236824.jpg 
Views:	81 
Size:	97.5 KB 
ID:	1290993
    Is 27 going out like 26 did, and if the standard becomes "obsolete", could that possibly contribute to a resurgence in 26? To me, if we have 2 sizes to choose from, it would make the most sense to spread em out to broaden the range.
    This is NOT a graph of sales. This graph represents what people were INTENDING to buy in the future, according to a VitalMTB readership survey.

    Here is the complete graphic:
    Name:  VitalMTB.PNG
Views: 336
Size:  68.5 KB

    Here is the article that comes from: https://www.bicycleretailer.com/prod...e-shreddy-29er

    You can find a link to the VitalMTB study there.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  14. #214
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,963
    Quote Originally Posted by Emax View Post
    This graph is so interesting to see... 2012 seems to be the year when the industry decided to kill off the 26er. The way the graph behaves - it's clear that 27.5 was used to replace the 26er - you can see that the 26er and 27.5 graphs are corelated and show a drastic change in short amount of time, while the 29 graph shows a more organic change.
    The rapid drop in 26er sales coincided with a rapid rise in 27.5 sales, yet the difference between these 2 sizes is not so significant to warrant such rapid replacement of one by the other - unless the customers were forced to buy 27.5 by the mere fact that 26ers were unavailable. Drop in sales like that would normally not happen unless there was some sort of a major safety concern relating to a 26er - which there wasn't. What other explanation can there be for such rapid drop in sales of 26er that coincides with such rapid growth in 27.5 bikes?
    See my response above with the full original graphic.... That graph is NOT showing sales. It is being incorrectly interpreted.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  15. #215
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta View Post
    See my response above with the full original graphic.... That graph is NOT showing sales. It is being incorrectly interpreted.
    My mistake - thank you for clarifying - I wonder what was the sampling size of this survey.

  16. #216
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,963
    Quote Originally Posted by Emax View Post
    My mistake - thank you for clarifying - I wonder what was the sampling size of this survey.
    I updated my post above with a link to the article it came from.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  17. #217
    Ride what you like!
    Reputation: MattiThundrrr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    331
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta View Post
    This is NOT a graph of sales. This graph represents what people were INTENDING to buy in the future, according to a VitalMTB readership "study".

    Here is the complete graphic:
    Name:  VitalMTB.PNG
Views: 336
Size:  68.5 KB
    Thank you for the correction. My attention to detail isn't always the greatest!


    Quote Originally Posted by Emax View Post
    My mistake - thank you for clarifying - I wonder what was the sampling size of this survey.
    Here is the full article I pulled the graph from:
    https://www.vitalmtb.com/features/Wh...y-Results,2787
    They say their sample size was 10,000 "mountain bikers". Not sure if that means they asked riders, or readers of their page. There is some other interesting stuff in there as well.
    The revolution starts now
    When you rise above your fear
    And tear the walls around you down
    The revolution starts here

  18. #218
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,786
    Quote Originally Posted by MattiThundrrr View Post
    Thank you for the correction. My attention to detail isn't always the greatest!




    Here is the full article I pulled the graph from:
    https://www.vitalmtb.com/features/Wh...y-Results,2787
    They say their sample size was 10,000 "mountain bikers". Not sure if that means they asked riders, or readers of their page. There is some other interesting stuff in there as well.
    Vital runs surveys all the time. I participated in this one I'm sure but they didn't say the data would be public. I just assumed it was to sell to their sponsors like PB does.

    On another thread someone posted actual sales charts that mirror vital's data. 650b sales have tanked.

  19. #219
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,289
    Quote Originally Posted by slimat99 View Post
    It's because the industry pulled the plug on 26 basically overnight. This graph isn't a reflection of actual sales, it's a survey of what people want to buy at the time. Of course very few said they were going to buy 26" after 2012. There were nearly no options at that point. I'm not saying the graph would look dramatically different if equal options had existed, but we can't say one way or the other. Add in the biggest marketing push we've ever seen, geo changes, new tires and wheels only available in 650b, and even hold outs like me bought 650b. The most interesting thing about this data to me is how few want to buy 650b in 2019 compared to 26 in 2012. While vital might not be the best gage for the market as a whole, it's a good representation of what experienced riders are interested in. Clearly 650b is less desirable in 2019 than 26" was in 2012. Not just by a little bit either. The industry will take note of this data.
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    The three rim sizes are 559, 584, and 622 but unless you ride without tires you need to pick a reasonable tire size and apply it to each.

    With a 58mm tall tire, the three wheel sizes are 675, 700, and 738. Using these numbers:

    26 to a 27.5 = +3.7%
    27.5 to 29 = +5.4%
    26 to 29 = +9.3%

    It's best not to use marketing dishonesty as the basis of calculations.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Marketing at its finest.
    (quote stolen from the 27.5 forum/thread)

  20. #220
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    376
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta View Post

    Here is the complete graphic:
    Name:  VitalMTB.PNG
Views: 336
Size:  68.5 KB
    Actually, the graph mattithunder posted is more complete since it shows 2019 and the one you posted does not. Same chart, just the other one has an additional year of data.

  21. #221
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    217
    Hes referring to the text under the graph that tells you what its actually a graph of...

  22. #222
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,963
    Quote Originally Posted by tahoebeau View Post
    Actually, the graph mattithunder posted is more complete since it shows 2019 and the one you posted does not. Same chart, just the other one has an additional year of data.
    Ah, good catch!

    However, my point was that the text was not included, which explains out what the graph actually is. This is important because the chart was assumed to be representing sales when it was not. The text explains this.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  23. #223
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    98
    Looks like the survey reflects the views of Californians - being that they constituted by far the largest group of survey respondents... That explains the results for sure, and makes for not a very reliable reflection of the mountain bikers' preferences as a whole.

    Even so, the prominence of the 27.5 in the chart and it's rapid rise that coincided with the co-related drop in the preferences for 26ers still gives the sense that something made people view 27.5 more favorably than both 26er and 29er - yet the size isn't as fun/tossable/stiff as 26er nor does it roll over stuff as well as a 29er... I think the only explanation is that the industry decided to promote that size more than any other and that is the result in people's perceptions. Unless there is another explanation?

  24. #224
    CS2
    CS2 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CS2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,941
    Quote Originally Posted by Emax View Post
    Looks like the survey reflects the views of Californians - being that they constituted by far the largest group of survey respondents... That explains the results for sure, and makes for not a very reliable reflection of the mountain bikers' preferences as a whole.

    Even so, the prominence of the 27.5 in the chart and it's rapid rise that coincided with the co-related drop in the preferences for 26ers still gives the sense that something made people view 27.5 more favorably than both 26er and 29er - yet the size isn't as fun/tossable/stiff as 26er nor does it roll over stuff as well as a 29er... I think the only explanation is that the industry decided to promote that size more than any other and that is the result in people's perceptions. Unless there is another explanation?
    The vast majority of people are followers not leaders. They’re told what to do and for the most part they do it. The people who are on forums are usually better informed. Our opinions are less subjective and more objective.They give well thought answers like you did.
    A garage full of steel frames means happiness.

  25. #225
    bike rider
    Reputation: Lelandjt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    5,359
    Quote Originally Posted by CS2 View Post
    I can see the advantages of a 29er, but a 650B just doesn’t have any real advantage over a 26 or 29.. It’s almost like the worst of both worlds. It just doesn’t do anything well enough to justify even tooling up a separate bike model.
    26" will have a place for sub 5ft people (kids too big for 24"), sub 5'8" people on a tight budget, and dirt jumpers. There's nowhere else that 650b isn't better. When 650b came out I did a lot of testing and timing. It was faster everywhere, only a tiny bit heavier, and I couldn't find any situations where I disliked the feel compared to 26 (I don't ride very steep BMX style dirt jumps). Basically, the wheels were big enough to feel smoother and more stable than 26 but not big enough to handle slower. When "new gen" 29ers got popular a couple years ago I got the most cutting edge XC and Enduro bikes (Spark RC & Capra 29) and did a bunch of testing. The XC bike was faster everywhere and I liked the feel. The Enduro was faster in most situations and I generally liked the feel but noticed downsides as well. Since then I've done all my racing on 29s but about 1/3 of my riding is still on 650b. For riders under 6'3" who don't race and prioritize nimbleness 650b will always have a place and you'll continue to see lots of 650b rear wheels in DH and enduro. My 2020 DH bike will be full 650b.

    Oh, and beach cruisers, the originators of 26", they'll keep the flame alive.
    Keep the Country country.

  26. #226
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,786
    Quote Originally Posted by Lelandjt View Post
    26" will have a place for sub 5ft people (kids too big for 24"), sub 5'8" people on a tight budget, and dirt jumpers. There's nowhere else that 650b isn't better. When 650b came out I did a lot of testing and timing. It was faster everywhere, only a tiny bit heavier, and I couldn't find any situations where I disliked the feel compared to 26 (I don't ride very steep BMX style dirt jumps). Basically, the wheels were big enough to feel smoother and more stable than 26 but not big enough to handle slower. When "new gen" 29ers got popular a couple years ago I got the most cutting edge XC and Enduro bikes (Spark RC & Capra 29) and did a bunch of testing. The XC bike was faster everywhere and I liked the feel. The Enduro was faster in most situations and I generally liked the feel but noticed downsides as well. Since then I've done all my racing on 29s but about 1/3 of my riding is still on 650b. For riders under 6'3" who don't race and prioritize nimbleness 650b will always have a place and you'll continue to see lots of 650b rear wheels in DH and enduro. My 2020 DH bike will be full 650b.

    Oh, and beach cruisers, the originators of 26", they'll keep the flame alive.
    The biggest issue with 650b is it's a compromise size. 650b is like what soccer mom crossovers are to SUV's and cars. They try to offer the best of both worlds but you're left with something that doesn't excel at anything. 650b was supposed to give us the rollover of 29 and the agility of 26 but it just rides like a bloated 26'er. Racing of all styles are being dominated by 29'ers, Rampage was just won on 26". So what is it that 650b does well again? I won't be surprised at all if in a few years we look back at 650b as an attempt to have our cake and eat it too. It's just a rim size. Just another standard the industry has played with. Nothing is immune from becoming obsolete. 650b has no niche to keep it going. Maybe it will live on at Walmart?

  27. #227
    bike rider
    Reputation: Lelandjt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    5,359
    Quote Originally Posted by slimat99 View Post
    650b try to offer the best of both worlds but you're left with something that doesn't excel at anything. 650b was supposed to give us the rollover of 29 and the agility of 26 but it just rides like a bloated 26'er.
    Well, that's where we disagree. I felt and the stop watch showed that 650b had better rollover and traction than 26". Like I said above, I was immediately faster and felt better in every situation compared to 26". I didn't feel any negatives compared to 26" and the weight gain was miniscule (I don't do extremely steep jumps or spins).
    With 29" I do feel some negative effects on handling and the weight gain is greater. Saying any more would be repeating my last post but the end result is there's things 650b does better than 29 so I think it will stick around (WC DH and Enduro races were won on it this year). The only things I think 26" does better than 650b are dirtjumps and fit very short riders. For what it's worth I stock the tires at my shop and will keep a decent selection of 26s for many years to come. We sell plenty since there's a deep inventory of used bikes in our town that work just fine for riders on a budget who don't race.

    P.S. I really think height affects how wheel sizes feel, I'm 6'2" and prefer a 465 reach.
    Keep the Country country.

  28. #228
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    376
    Quote Originally Posted by Lelandjt View Post
    When 650b came out I did a lot of testing and timing.
    unless you used the same tires on both bikes and they both had similar geometry and components the test would be pretty pointless. Plus, it has been tested before (in what would be a significantly better controlled test than anything you did) and 27.5” looses.

    Regardless of all that, recent sales numbers (just a few years after 27.5” introduction) have shown 27.5” looses and that the majority of mtbrs have finally been able to see past the marketing hype as the performance of 27.5 didn’t hold up to shit the was being flung. Most of it was straight lies about the performance of 27.5” anyways and now is the backlash.

    https://youtu.be/kxfrykeSNCE

  29. #229
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,786
    Quote Originally Posted by Lelandjt View Post
    Well, that's where we disagree. I felt and the stop watch showed that 650b had better rollover and traction than 26". Like I said above, I was immediately faster and felt better in every situation compared to 26". I didn't feel any negatives compared to 26" and the weight gain was miniscule (I don't do extremely steep jumps or spins).
    With 29" I do feel some negative effects on handling and the weight gain is greater. Saying any more would be repeating my last post but the end result is there's things 650b does better than 29 so I think it will stick around (WC DH and Enduro races were won on it this year). The only things I think 26" does better than 650b are dirtjumps and fit very short riders. For what it's worth I stock the tires at my shop and will keep a decent selection of 26s for many years to come. We sell plenty since there's a deep inventory of used bikes in our town that work just fine for riders on a budget who don't race.

    P.S. I really think height affects how wheel sizes feel, I'm 6'2" and prefer a 465 reach.
    So you tested 26 against 650b with geo constant? I don't believe height affects how 26" and 27" wheels handle. A 6'1" rider just won rampage on a 26'er. The difference between 26" and 27" is negligible in regards to rider height. There's no reason you can't have a 465 reach with 26" wheels. That would just help bring some mobility back that's been lost to such a long wheel base. 27" is just the new 26" with 27" proponents using the same arguments 26" proponents used in 2013. It's pretty comical really. The biggest difference between now and 2013 is 26" still has a niche to keep it around.

    You mentioned that some EWS and DH races were won on 650b this year. Were you watching the EWS and DH in 2013? 26" didn't just win races it won the first EWS title against all the new 650bs. Brycland got his first win ever on one of the last 26" bikes in competition. How'd that work out for 26" in the long run? If 26" didn't have a niche outside of racing it really would be dead. Don't get your hopes up for 650b just because it won a few races last year.

  30. #230
    Music & Bikes
    Reputation: fokof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,545
    650 is NOT an in between 26/700.

    650 is 3% bigger than 26 (2148mm circumference 650 X 53)
    700 is 10% bigger than 26 (2288mm circumference 700 X 53)

    (2068mm circumference 26 X 2.1 )

    They made 650 so you have to buy a new bike and new tires , not because it's an "in between".
    "There is a big difference between kneeling down and bending over" -FZ

  31. #231
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,963

    Will the 26er ever rise from the ashes?

    Quote Originally Posted by fokof View Post
    650 is NOT an in between 26/700.

    650 is 3% bigger than 26 (2148mm circumference 650 X 53)
    700 is 10% bigger than 26 (2288mm circumference 700 X 53)

    (2068mm circumference 26 X 2.1 )

    They made 650 so you have to buy a new bike and new tires , not because it's an "in between".
    You can’t use the numbers “650” and “700” the way you are using them for comparison. Those measurements are diameters to the outside of the tire treads, but they are based in different tire sizes (thus the B and C parts)

    Do the math using the actual bead-to-bead rim widths (or add on a consistent tire width for good measure) and you will see that 27.5/650b is about 40% of the way between 26er and 29er in both diameter and circumference.

    If 650b was going to be given a number between 26 and 29 (two numbers that were never measuring the same thing to start with) it should have been “27.2”.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  32. #232
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by Lelandjt View Post
    There's nowhere else that 650b isn't better. When 650b came out I did a lot of testing and timing. It was faster everywhere, only a tiny bit heavier, and I couldn't find any situations where I disliked the feel compared to 26 (I don't ride very steep BMX style dirt jumps). Basically, the wheels were big enough to feel smoother and more stable than 26 but not big enough to handle slower. When "new gen" 29ers got popular a couple years ago I got the most cutting edge XC and Enduro bikes (Spark RC & Capra 29) and did a bunch of testing. The XC bike was faster everywhere and I liked the feel. The Enduro was faster in most situations and I generally liked the feel but noticed downsides as well. Since then I've done all my racing on 29s but about 1/3 of my riding is still on 650b. For riders under 6'3" who don't race and prioritize nimbleness 650b will always have a place and you'll continue to see lots of 650b rear wheels in DH and enduro. My 2020 DH bike will be full 650b.
    .
    The use of the word "testing" here offends my scientific nature.

    The only way any of this is valid is if you have the exact same bike, same tires, compensated geometry for BB height, gearing compensated for diametre, and zero other changes..

  33. #233
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,786
    Out of 14 bikes only 3 650b's. What will 2021 look like?

    https://www.pinkbike.com/news/video-...ield-test.html

  34. #234
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,963
    I find it interesting when 27.5 naysayers explain the move from 26 to 27.5 as the industry forcing it on people, yet the move from 27.5 to 29 and rider-driven.

    Companies offering fewer 26” models in the early 2010s was an industry plot, but offering fewer 27.5 is a response to rider preference.

    People dumping their 26ers for a larger wheel size was a sign of them being duped, dumping their 27.5s for a larger wheel size is somehow different, and a sign of them knowing better than the industry.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  35. #235
    Music & Bikes
    Reputation: fokof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,545
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta View Post
    I find it interesting when 27.5 naysayers explain the move from 26 to 27.5 as the industry forcing it on people, yet the move from 27.5 to 29 and rider-driven.

    Companies offering fewer 26” models in the early 2010s was an industry plot, but offering fewer 27.5 is a response to rider preference.

    People dumping their 26ers for a larger wheel size was a sign of them being duped, dumping their 27.5s for a larger wheel size is somehow different, and a sign of them knowing better than the industry.
    The point is that 700 DOES make a roll over difference , but 650 ?
    I still call BS ......

    700 does roll over better but 650 only has disadvantages over both wheel sizes.
    And I don't care about the sales..... I work in the music industry
    I live the effect marketing over the consumer/indusrty every day !!

    I ordered a custom made frame around 2014 as nobody made interesting 26ers anymore with "modernish" geometry and it's Perfect.
    I could have asked them to invent a new wheel size even.

    I'm 185cm tall , my 700 MTB is sleeping in the basement.
    "There is a big difference between kneeling down and bending over" -FZ

  36. #236
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wightweenie26er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    66
    Thank heavens for https://www.extralite.com/mountain-bike.php they still make/sell top end 26er wheels for disc and V's They stop selling 27.5
    I hope they continue i'd be lost with out them.

  37. #237
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jupiter58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    247
    Interesting discussion. What wheel size to use? I have all three size hoops.....fun!. So how does the 2019 UCI world downhill championship bike figure into this discussion of wheel size? or does one give full credit to the rider? to the best of my knowledge 29ers have not won a UCI downhill championship yet.Seems to carry over somewhat into all mountain etc. smaller rear wheel has advantages on this particular bike?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Will the 26er ever rise from the ashes?-s1600_loicainterview_669213.jpg  


  38. #238
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jupiter58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    247
    brings back memories of this Carver 96er frame, it can be run as 9'27.5er. my next build will be such an odd interesting bike.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Will the 26er ever rise from the ashes?-frm-96-cvr2512.jpg  


  39. #239
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jupiter58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    247
    Actually not real sure of a 29er has won a UCI downhill crown, what are the facts on that?

  40. #240
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    12,648
    Quote Originally Posted by jupiter58 View Post
    Actually not real sure of a 29er has won a UCI downhill crown, what are the facts on that?


    Google knows. https://www.uci.org/news/2018/27-5-v...bate-continues
    I brake for stinkbugs

  41. #241
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jupiter58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    247
    I see, two years ago. to add to the mix this guys bike for 2019 was a 29er.The mixed wheel size is quite intriguing
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Will the 26er ever rise from the ashes?-stage-bike-gallery-5b-01-1200x675.jpg  


  42. #242
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jupiter58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    247
    my apologies for the double pics....me dumb.

  43. #243
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mtbmike24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by jupiter58 View Post
    I see, two years ago. to add to the mix this guys bike for 2019 was a 29er.The mixed wheel size is quite intriguing
    Yep the fastest Cross country rider in the world whipped everyone on 29ers with a low profile 27.5 bike all the way up to 2015.
    Wheels were probably not much bigger than 26 inch wheels. He changed over in 2016. Nino apparently was never happy with the geometry of the 29ers. Scott worked with him to get the geometry comfortable for him for years apparently.
    He finally changed to 29 inch wheels and guess what he still beat everyone ass.
    Here is his 2015 27.5 hardtail in medium frame. I think it weighed around 18 lbs.
    Shurter was and is the perfect example of the saying "it's the rider not the bike".
    The fitter more skilled rider will win most of the time. Will the 26er ever rise from the ashes?-122117-largest_ninoschurterscale1.jpg

    Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  44. #244
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wightweenie26er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    66
    Agree. Having tried to ride the bigger wheels. I still come back to what i know rides perfectly well. The 29er is just too big and unwieldily. So i'll be staying with 26. If people keep buying it then the manufacturer will have to keep making some in limited numbers. They are hard to find but worth the extra effort.

  45. #245
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    3,045
    Even if 26 did make a comeback the new frames will have hub spacing that is 2 iterations newer than an old 26 wheel set. I was hell bent on keeping my 26 alive and didn’t move to a 27.5 for any reason other than wanting a bigger bike with more dh capabilities.

    I honestly can’t really tell that much difference in the rollover department... not like going to a 29er. Otherwise, there’s too much change from old bike to know bike for me to make a fair comparison on any other attributes.

    I’d still rock the old 26er Yeti though. Great bike, 26 wheels and all.

  46. #246
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Sickmak90 View Post
    I think I’m actually picking up a 2006 stumpy FSR tomorrow. I’ve been looking for a cheap but rideable bike for camping and it might just fit the bill.

    I’m no geo expert but the geo on it doesn’t look that bad. I expect it will be pretty fun on my local trails but I bet it’s gonna suck on technical climbs. Sometimes I need my bulldozer to clear roots and rocks while climbing.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I picked up an 07 stumpy pro carbon last year because I thought it was the best bike form my trails, my wife said I could by new and I spent some time really pondering before pulling the trigger. 26 is still the best for Indiana where 5 foot radius turns and downhills that are over in less than a 5 count that go straight into a climb just as steep and short with roots everywhere are the norm. The only place a 29er can get up to speed around here in on the fire roads.

    Not everyone rides in bike parks or groomed trails with chair lifts, although I think the industry would prefer that.

  47. #247
    CS2
    CS2 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CS2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,941
    Quote Originally Posted by mnigro View Post
    Even if 26 did make a comeback the new frames will have hub spacing that is 2 iterations newer than an old 26 wheel set. I was hell bent on keeping my 26 alive and didn’t move to a 27.5 for any reason other than wanting a bigger bike with more dh capabilities.

    I honestly can’t really tell that much difference in the rollover department... not like going to a 29er. Otherwise, there’s too much change from old bike to know bike for me to make a fair comparison on any other attributes.

    I’d still rock the old 26er Yeti though. Great bike, 26 wheels and all.
    I'm still rocking my 84 Stumpjumper. It doesn't see much off road action at all. But it sure looks nice.
    A garage full of steel frames means happiness.

  48. #248
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    120
    For me the bike industry is at a all time low point. I loathe 29'ers & E-bikes & that is all that gets talked about in bike media now. I will never own a 29'er even if that means never owning another new bike. I have tried out many & they feel like crap to me ... all of them.
    Most people are not technical & in my experience buy the bike they are "told" to buy for the most part.

    Just a few days ago I ran into an acquaintance on the trail & she had a new bike. It was a 29'er of course & she didn't understand why it felt sluggish & heavy. Her old bike was a 26 FSR that she had had for years.

  49. #249
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    103
    I'm guessing that if the bike industry didn't offer up some new stuff, they would be history. Kind of sucks that something has to go to make room for new stuff, but I do understand how that goes. My guess is we will eventually see some new improved '90's NORBA geometry 26ers for the people that don't ride extreme DH trails, like nimble light bikes and in my case full rigid. If not I'll just adapt to what they are offering, beats quitting.

  50. #250
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19
    Yet another old guy retro rider gotta weigh in - I'm stuck on mid-90s Super Vs, as well as the 26" wheels they require. Advantages of 26" wheels, performance category: they spin up quick, due to less inertia to overcome on every shift. I shift a lot, and the difference is noticeable. Ease of transport/storage category: My bikes, with medium frames, 21" bars and 100mm pedals are easier to get into and out of a vehicle, and to store. 26" wheels are typically lighter than 27.5's or 29's, but that is changing with carbon rims and spokes.

  51. #251
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    98
    While I don't hate the 29ers or any other bike types as I think they all have their place. I do think that the industry did desert 26er fans and the marketing machine kicked in the high gear to erase the 26er from the memory. If you listen to some youtubers you'd think that the ONLY 2 mountain bike wheel sizes are 27.5 and 29 - that's it... and that is a little short sighted in my opinion, because it's not like people will start tossing their Sevens, Moots, IF, Ventana, and Titus in their recycling bin. I took my Ventana Pantera out for a spin last week and it felt great to ride it - that single pivot frame is 16 years old and it looks like I bought it 4 months ago. All I need to do is replace the components and it will last probably anther 30 years if not longer. I'm not getting any younger and I don't take chances that I would when I was younger... so why would I change it? The thing is, if someone was making 26er compatible components - say on XT level, or mid price/weight range fork - then I'm pretty sure they would still be able to make money on that stuff - especially if these were older designs, what work great and don't need any further R&D.

  52. #252
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Emax View Post
    , if someone was making 26er compatible components - say on XT level,
    What new XT components don't fit a 26" bike?
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  53. #253
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,963
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    What new XT components don't fit a 26" bike?
    I was wondering the same thing. The only 26" specific components I can think of are rims, tires, and forks.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  54. #254
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,230
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta View Post
    I was wondering the same thing. The only 26" specific components I can think of are rims, tires, and forks.
    Even forks are kinda debatable; no reason you can't run a 27.5" fork on a 26" frame.
    Highly doubt most people could actually tell the difference, and even those who might can easily put in a little homework to make it negligible.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  55. #255
    mtbr member
    Reputation: The.Dude.Abides.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    41
    26 inch wheels still have a special place in my heart..

    On my dirt jumper, my fat bike, and my mildly antiquated DH sled.

    On a modern trail bike? Not for Colorado's Front Range chunk. Might as well hike. Narrow radius switchbacks? two words; Pivot Turn

  56. #256
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,821
    Quote Originally Posted by The.Dude.Abides. View Post
    26 inch wheels still have a special place in my heart..

    On my dirt jumper, my fat bike, and my mildly antiquated DH sled.

    On a modern trail bike? Not for Colorado's Front Range chunk. Might as well hike. Narrow radius switchbacks? two words; Pivot Turn
    Switchbacks? Smaller wheels do that better, no?
    It is the Right of the People to Alter or to Abolish It.

  57. #257
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by The.Dude.Abides. View Post
    26 inch wheels still have a special place in my heart..

    On my dirt jumper, my fat bike, and my mildly antiquated DH sled.

    On a modern trail bike? Not for Colorado's Front Range chunk. Might as well hike. Narrow radius switchbacks? two words; Pivot Turn
    That all comes down where you ride doesn't it? I don't ride on the luge style single track trails that are built for the modern bikes... I'm still riding the hiking trails that multi-use, narrow and twisty and rocky. The funny thing is that all those modern bikes leave one big clue on these trails - the multiple pedal or crank strikes on the rocks - I can't remember a time when I'd see so many rocks adorned with the white strike marks.

    Come to think of it... I don't remember crank strike to be so much of a concern in the 26er age, that you could get crank arm protectors for your cranksets...

  58. #258
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Vespasianus View Post
    All the ones that don't work with 3x system.
    FWIW, "3x" has nothing at all to do with wheel size. I'm sure you already know that though.


    As far as availability, went through this same conversation (with the same guy ) a few weeks ago.

    Nothing has changed in that time; anyone can still easily get 3x cranksets and shifters, from entry level all the way up to XTR. Universal Cycles alone offers 30 different options for mountain triples.

    https://www.universalcycles.com/shop...hp?category=64

    Tires and rims are the only 26" specific items.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  59. #259
    mtbr member
    Reputation: The.Dude.Abides.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by Vespasianus View Post
    Switchbacks? Smaller wheels do that better, no?
    No. but shorter wheelbases do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Emax View Post
    That all comes down where you ride doesn't it? I don't ride on the luge style single track trails that are built for the modern bikes... I'm still riding the hiking trails that multi-use, narrow and twisty and rocky. The funny thing is that all those modern bikes leave one big clue on these trails - the multiple pedal or crank strikes on the rocks - I can't remember a time when I'd see so many rocks adorned with the white strike marks.

    Come to think of it... I don't remember crank strike to be so much of a concern in the 26er age, that you could get crank arm protectors for your cranksets...
    You don't chalk that up to the increased volume of newer riders?

    I'm still riding and building narrow, twisty, rocky multi use trails that were all burned in by hikers and rigid 3x 26ers.

    We've added very little new bike only trails anywhere near Colorado's Front Range. Even our multi use trail reroutes do not cater towards "Luge style single track for modern trail bikes"

    Trails are built to scrub speed when they're multi use to keep trail users safe.

    Even our latest directional/bike only trails aren't "luge style" they favor newer (longer slacker) bikes though because of the degree of difficulty and steepness.

  60. #260
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    FWIW, "3x" has nothing at all to do with wheel size. I'm sure you already know that though.


    As far as availability, went through this same conversation (with the same guy ) a few weeks ago.

    Nothing has changed in that time; anyone can still easily get 3x cranksets and shifters, from entry level all the way up to XTR. Universal Cycles alone offers 30 different options for mountain triples.

    https://www.universalcycles.com/shop...hp?category=64

    Tires and rims are the only 26" specific items.
    I would argue that the 3x system is absolutely associated with the 26ers as it was developed for that very wheel size, and the chain ring sizes, cassette range and ratios were all built for that wheel size. Which is by the way, why with the arrival of the big wheel bikes all of a sudden cassette cogs got so huge... and why changes to those drivetrains keep taking place.

    Are you arguing that because Universalcycles has some square taper, octalink, no-name and old stock Shimano parts that will accommodate 3x systems, the 3x as a system is alive and well? That's like saying that the industry is fully behind the 26ers because you can get 26 inch wheels, tires and tubes. We all know that's not the case.

  61. #261
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    98
    Deleted
    Last edited by Emax; 12-11-2019 at 09:20 AM. Reason: got an error on initial response

  62. #262
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    729
    Quote Originally Posted by Emax View Post
    I would argue that the 3x system is absolutely associated with the 26ers as it was developed for that very wheel size, and the chain ring sizes, cassette range and ratios were all built for that wheel size. Which is by the way, why with the arrival of the big wheel bikes all of a sudden cassette cogs got so huge... and why changes to those drivetrains keep taking place.
    What????

    3x has nothing to do with wheel size. 1x has nothing to do with wheel size. You can run 1x on a 26in not problem. I am so confused why this whole 3x thing even came up.

    The only 26in specific parts IMO are tires, rims, forks and frames. And as slapheadmofo said you can use 27.5in forks.

    I mean I don't like that the selection of tires is dying and new off the shelf frames have pretty much disappear but 3x has nothing to do with 26in.
    Ragley Big Wig, Sunday Soundwave (BMX), 91 Schwinn High Plain (single speed "gravel" bike), Nashbar CXSS (workout)

  63. #263
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Emax View Post
    I would argue that the 3x system is absolutely associated with the 26ers as it was developed for that very wheel size, and the chain ring sizes, cassette range and ratios were all built for that wheel size. Which is by the way, why with the arrival of the big wheel bikes all of a sudden cassette cogs got so huge... and why changes to those drivetrains keep taking place.

    Are you arguing that because Universalcycles has some square taper, octalink, no-name and old stock Shimano parts that will accommodate 3x systems, the 3x as a system is alive and well? That's like saying that the industry is fully behind the 26ers because you can get 26 inch wheels, tires and tubes. We all know that's not the case.
    I'm going to argue that you really don't have much of a grasp on this stuff. You are obviously wildly confused when it comes to distinguishing what issues are actually due to wheel size and what are due to thinking every 26" bike is required to be built completely of antique/retro/vintage parts. Except bottom brackets I guess? Then you only want the latest and greatest?

    Speaking of BBs, the higher end cranksets don't use the ST, OL, etc BBs. The lower end ones do, which makes sense, and it means you can easily get new cranks to fit on your vintage BB in your vintage frame, which I believe was another 'issue' you were complaining about previously, or at least something similar.

    Do you need someone to go into the descriptions on the page I linked and read them for you? Every Shimino crank from Alivio on up is available in 'modern' BB types. That includes the XTR ones that I linked you too last previously as well as the EXACT model you brought up in this thread, XT. I would suggest that maybe if you do a little better with your own research, you would be able to easily get past a lot of these roadblocks you seem to keep bringing up.

    Here, to get you started, is the link to the XT crank with the modern BB style you say you couldn't find. It's right on the page I linked earlier, in among the other ones you're saying don't exist.

    https://www.universalcycles.com/shop...30&category=64

    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  64. #264
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Emax View Post
    That all comes down where you ride doesn't it? I don't ride on the luge style single track trails that are built for the modern bikes... I'm still riding the hiking trails that multi-use, narrow and twisty and rocky.

    Come to think of it... I don't remember crank strike to be so much of a concern in the 26er age, that you could get crank arm protectors for your cranksets...
    I ride in the same area you ride. Where exactly are all these luge-style singletracks? I'd like to hit a few for a change of pace.


    Here's what the "26er" age did to my chainrings:

    Will the 26er ever rise from the ashes?-img_1942.jpg

    That's nothing compared to what it did to cranks, and I lost count of how many pedals I completely demolished; easily well over a dozen. If you get around the area a bit with your riding, I can guarantee you've been looking at my rock strikes for decades. The big difference now is definitely the added traffic.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  65. #265
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,821
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    FWIW, "3x" has nothing at all to do with wheel size. I'm sure you already know that though.


    As far as availability, went through this same conversation (with the same guy ) a few weeks ago.

    Nothing has changed in that time; anyone can still easily get 3x cranksets and shifters, from entry level all the way up to XTR. Universal Cycles alone offers 30 different options for mountain triples.

    https://www.universalcycles.com/shop...hp?category=64

    Tires and rims are the only 26" specific items.
    Where the heck does that quote come from (says it is from me)? I can't find in this thread and have no idea what it was about.
    It is the Right of the People to Alter or to Abolish It.

  66. #266
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,821
    Quote Originally Posted by The.Dude.Abides. View Post
    No. but shorter wheelbases do.
    I am confused. 26" bikes tend to have much shorter wheelbases.
    It is the Right of the People to Alter or to Abolish It.

  67. #267
    mtbr member
    Reputation: The.Dude.Abides.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by Vespasianus View Post
    Switchbacks? Smaller wheels do that better, no?
    Quote Originally Posted by Vespasianus View Post
    I am confused. 26" bikes tend to have much shorter wheelbases.
    All I was trying to point out is that the wheel size isn't the determining factor of turning radius. It's the wheelbase.

  68. #268
    Ride what you like!
    Reputation: MattiThundrrr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    331
    Quote Originally Posted by Vespasianus View Post
    Where the heck does that quote come from (says it is from me)? I can't find in this thread and have no idea what it was about.
    post #256
    The revolution starts now
    When you rise above your fear
    And tear the walls around you down
    The revolution starts here

  69. #269
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,230
    Quote Originally Posted by MattiThundrrr View Post
    post #256
    Yeah, but not anymore. Weird.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  70. #270
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    694
    BTW, where are these ashes that 26ers are supposed to rise out of? I'd really like to rummage through them. Might be a free bike in there for me!

  71. #271
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,821
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    Yeah, but not anymore. Weird.

    The quote I am referring to was this:


    Will the 26er ever rise from the ashes?-screen-shot-2019-12-12-8.08.43-pm.jpg

    I don't remember ever saying that and can't find it in this thread at all. What the heck is going on here!
    It is the Right of the People to Alter or to Abolish It.

  72. #272
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,786
    Quote Originally Posted by Emax View Post
    I would argue that the 3x system is absolutely associated with the 26ers as it was developed for that very wheel size, and the chain ring sizes, cassette range and ratios were all built for that wheel size. Which is by the way, why with the arrival of the big wheel bikes all of a sudden cassette cogs got so huge... and why changes to those drivetrains keep taking place.

    Are you arguing that because Universalcycles has some square taper, octalink, no-name and old stock Shimano parts that will accommodate 3x systems, the 3x as a system is alive and well? That's like saying that the industry is fully behind the 26ers because you can get 26 inch wheels, tires and tubes. We all know that's not the case.
    You're got your drivetrain history all messed up. The first dinner plate cassettes were developed on 26'ers. 1x11 was developed in 2011, came out in 2012. Of course 27" took over in 2013/14 so we associate dinner plate cassettes with the new wheel size. Below shows the first EWS champ's 1x11 26'er.


    https://www.pinkbike.com/news/Cannon...-clementz.html

  73. #273
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Vespasianus View Post
    The quote I am referring to was this:


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 2019-12-12 at 8.08.43 PM.jpg 
Views:	28 
Size:	26.3 KB 
ID:	1298173

    I don't remember ever saying that and can't find it in this thread at all. What the heck is going on here!
    Yeah, it was there, then it was gone. I thought you went back and changed it.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  74. #274
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mtbmike24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    I ride in the same area you ride. Where exactly are all these luge-style singletracks? I'd like to hit a few for a change of pace.


    Here's what the "26er" age did to my chainrings:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_1942.jpg 
Views:	27 
Size:	104.7 KB 
ID:	1297929

    That's nothing compared to what it did to cranks, and I lost count of how many pedals I completely demolished; easily well over a dozen. If you get around the area a bit with your riding, I can guarantee you've been looking at my rock strikes for decades. The big difference now is definitely the added traffic.
    Wow... All my bikes are 26ers and while I do get the occasional pedal strike here and there on my full suspension it's really not a issue there just pedal strikes not chain ring strikes. I have never damaged any of my chain rings like that.
    If I get in some nasty rock gardens I soft pedal or ratchet my crank arms and concentrate on my lines. I have popped up and over 12 inch water bars and not touched my chain rings.
    BTW I live in Colorado and we have lots of rocky trails here.
    Plus those look like 3x chain rings today's bikes are running basically 30-34 single rings up front. You can't blame 26ers for damaged chain rings you would probably be in the same boat if bikes of today came with a 44 tooth big ring.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  75. #275
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,786
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    I ride in the same area you ride. Where exactly are all these luge-style singletracks? I'd like to hit a few for a change of pace.


    Here's what the "26er" age did to my chainrings:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_1942.jpg 
Views:	27 
Size:	104.7 KB 
ID:	1297929

    That's nothing compared to what it did to cranks, and I lost count of how many pedals I completely demolished; easily well over a dozen. If you get around the area a bit with your riding, I can guarantee you've been looking at my rock strikes for decades. The big difference now is definitely the added traffic.
    Why didn't you swap your big ring for a bash? 2x bash was the no brainer set up starting in the early 2000's for riders killing big rings. If you preferred having a really tall high gear than you can't complain about smashing big rings. I'm surprised you aren't having more issues with today's bikes in regards to pedal and crank smashing. I know I do compared to the tall BB monster truck 26'ers I used to ride.

    I'm happy to trade some clearance for better cornering but I find most bikes today are a bit too low. I really have to be mindful of clearance like I never did back in the day. I would like to see BB's go up .25" or so for anything 140mm and up.

  76. #276
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mtbmike24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    149
    I mountain biked Fruita, Porcupine Rim, Amasa Back, Poison Spider and several others in Moab on a 3x9. It was a 2007 Novara Pondarosa. I didn't hit the big ring once.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  77. #277
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mtbmike24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by slimat99 View Post
    You're got your drivetrain history all messed up. The first dinner plate cassettes were developed on 26'ers. 1x11 was developed in 2011, came out in 2012. Of course 27" took over in 2013/14 so we associate dinner plate cassettes with the new wheel size. Below shows the first EWS champ's 1x11 26'er.


    https://www.pinkbike.com/news/Cannon...-clementz.html
    I though 1x11 was introduced in 2012. That article was written in 2013. 29ers were already mainstream by 2010 as the 26er forced faze out started as early as 2010 by Trek, specialized and Giant.
    I remember the time well. 2010 was the first year I was going to race and was looking for a race bike. I had my eyes onna Trek 9.9 elite SSL because I love hard tails. I couldn't afford the 8,000 dollar price tag so I settled for the 3,000 dollar 2010 Trek 8500 which took 3 months to get. The Trek rep and all the salesman were floored that I would spend 3,000 dollars on a 26er when I could buy a Superfly 100 29er

    The 2013 specialized epic 29er I believe was the first bike to be sold on the show room with a 1x11 in 2013 could be wrong on this.

    26 down hill bikes lasted a couple of years more but were still on their way out. I really don't see that it matters what wheel they used to develop 1x systems. I saw the article states they implemented a 1x but didn't develop. Did I miss read or miss something.

    I guess you can say that 1x started with 26 inch wheels because people have been running single rings up front since forever ago they just weren't 11 speed and nothing was sold as a complete system.

    I would think the 1x or " the dinner plate" rear cassette might have been designed around 29er wheels not 26 for the added range of not having the 2 other chain rings up front and the wheel diameter difference. The added benefit that they saw was a weight reduction and could solve clearance issues with the elimination of the front derailleur while trying to get the geometry correct with 29er frames.
    Since the 1x11 was the first 1x system developed and sold to manufactures as a complete system in 2012 to put on new bikes there wasn't much available in 26 at that time even in downhill bikes.
    I could be completely off base here.

    With all this said the adoption of 29ers there is a silver lining, it ment I could finally afford to build up a 2012 trek elite SSL just like Trek sold it in 2012 with all brand new parts I found off ebay in 2015. I still have the Trek 8500 as well that I converted to my single speed.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  78. #278
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,230
    Quote Originally Posted by slimat99 View Post
    Why didn't you swap your big ring for a bash? 2x bash was the no brainer set up starting in the early 2000's for riders killing big rings. .
    Totally agree; those were all from well before 2000. Before that, I was just trashing RockRings along with the chainrings (like you can see on the set on the left).

    It was really nice when you could start getting bashrings for 2X systems.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  79. #279
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,230
    Quote Originally Posted by mtbmike24 View Post
    I mountain biked Fruita, Porcupine Rim, Amasa Back, Poison Spider and several others in Moab on a 3x9. It was a 2007 Novara Pondarosa. I didn't hit the big ring once.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
    Congratulations.

    I rode Lynn Woods, Vietnam and similar trail systems a lot throughout the 90s and into the early 00s. If you were taking the same lines I was attempting, unless you were a good trials rider (I wasn't then and still ain't), you were trashing rings.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  80. #280
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mtbmike24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    Congratulations.
    If you were taking the same lines I was attempting, unless you were a good trials rider (I wasn't then and still ain't), you were trashing rings.
    Yep good skilled fit rider is what makes a bike 80% capable in pretty much every type of terrain no matter the components or wheel size.

    A saying that for some reason has to keep getting pounded into people head time after time after time.

    And still won't change long after I'm gone.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  81. #281
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,786
    Quote Originally Posted by mtbmike24 View Post
    I though 1x11 was introduced in 2012. That article was written in 2013. 29ers were already mainstream by 2010 as the 26er forced faze out started as early as 2010 by Trek, specialized and Giant.
    I remember the time well. 2010 was the first year I was going to race and was looking for a race bike. I had my eyes onna Trek 9.9 elite SSL because I love hard tails. I couldn't afford the 8,000 dollar price tag so I settled for the 3,000 dollar 2010 Trek 8500 which took 3 months to get. The Trek rep and all the salesman were floored that I would spend 3,000 dollars on a 26er when I could buy a Superfly 100 29er

    The 2013 specialized epic 29er I believe was the first bike to be sold on the show room with a 1x11 in 2013 could be wrong on this.

    26 down hill bikes lasted a couple of years more but were still on their way out. I really don't see that it matters what wheel they used to develop 1x systems. I saw the article states they implemented a 1x but didn't develop. Did I miss read or miss something.

    I guess you can say that 1x started with 26 inch wheels because people have been running single rings up front since forever ago they just weren't 11 speed and nothing was sold as a complete system.

    I would think the 1x or " the dinner plate" rear cassette might have been designed around 29er wheels not 26 for the added range of not having the 2 other chain rings up front and the wheel diameter difference. The added benefit that they saw was a weight reduction and could solve clearance issues with the elimination of the front derailleur while trying to get the geometry correct with 29er frames.
    Since the 1x11 was the first 1x system developed and sold to manufactures as a complete system in 2012 to put on new bikes there wasn't much available in 26 at that time even in downhill bikes.
    I could be completely off base here.

    With all this said the adoption of 29ers there is a silver lining, it ment I could finally afford to build up a 2012 trek elite SSL just like Trek sold it in 2012 with all brand new parts I found off ebay in 2015. I still have the Trek 8500 as well that I converted to my single speed.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
    1x11 was available to the public in 2012. Riders around Colorado Springs may have seen Sram testers running dinner plate cassettes in 2011 so it was developed when a big portion of the market was on 26. Of course it was designed with 29 in mind too. Considering 1x11 had a taller low gear than 2x10 and 2x9 it certainly wasn't designed to make pedaling bigger wheels easier. I know I gave up a little low end even with a 30t. I personally wouldn't have wanted 1x11 on a 29'er until bigger than 42t became a thing. I remember seeing some 29'ers running 28t 1x11. As far as I'm concerned, if you need a 28t with 1x, you're better off with 2x. I'm not saying that to make a case that 1x11 was designed for 26, but it certainly wasn't designed for 650b because it came out too early, and it was pretty tough gearing for 29 unless you gave up your top end. .

  82. #282
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,786
    Quote Originally Posted by mtbmike24 View Post
    I mountain biked Fruita, Porcupine Rim, Amasa Back, Poison Spider and several others in Moab on a 3x9. It was a 2007 Novara Pondarosa. I didn't hit the big ring once.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
    That's because all those places are sanitized now lol. Actually lunch loops (technicaly not Fruita but close enough) is one of the few places that put up signs to discourage dumbing down the trails. Kudos to them for doing that. Moab on the other hand doesn't seem to value the technical nature of their trails.

    Back to the topic. The following was copied from pinkbike's 2019 bike of the year awards:

    That's right, for the first time ever, all of the bikes that were nominated roll on big wheels. The pool of new 27.5” wheeled bikes was shallower than ever this year, and while there were several solid contenders, they didn't quite make the cut to get into the final round.

    650b ain't dead might be the mantra for 2020. It's said in jest now, it's about to get real.

  83. #283
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mtbmike24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by slimat99 View Post
    That's because all those places are sanitized now lol. Actually lunch loops (technicaly not Fruita but close enough) is one of the few places that put up signs to discourage dumbing down the trails. Kudos to them for doing that. Moab on the other hand doesn't seem to value the technical nature of their trails.

    Back to the topic. The following was copied from pinkbike's 2019 bike of the year awards:

    That's right, for the first time ever, all of the bikes that were nominated roll on big wheels. The pool of new 27.5” wheeled bikes was shallower than ever this year, and while there were several solid contenders, they didn't quite make the cut to get into the final round.

    650b ain't dead might be the mantra for 2020. It's said in jest now, it's about to get real.

    Well good... I'm glad I made you laugh. That was 12 years ago dude not recent on a brand new 2007 bike. I don't own that bike anymore.

    I was simply making a point I road those trails on a 100mm 27 speed hardtail with a 3x crank plus several other trails here in Colorado and we have Rocky trails here and I did it without issue. Despite what you think there are many spots you can take out a big ring on any of those trails in Moab.

    I'm glad you find those trails simple lunch loops and easy from technical perspective I never said they were hard trails just many places you can take out a 44 tooth big ring but I always picked a line keeping my big ring out of harm's way. It's kind of like 4 wheeling got to watch out for diffs and shock mounts. People road 3x for years on technical nasty trails without issue.

    Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

  84. #284
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,786
    Here's the best case I've head for 26" coming back. I'm not saying 26" is coming back because of these rumors, but if these rumors are accurate, we will be back to 26 and 29 for the most part. The following is from the linked article below.

    "I’ve had a handful of conversations with folks on the product side who have all essentially told me that the end of 27.5″ is near. It was hard to believe at first, but the claims were validated across a few brands who manufacture various products. Starting with a couple of bike brands, I was told that virtually everything is going 29″ for next year and that 27.5″ will be offered for some smaller sizes and women’s models. Then to back this up, I heard the same thing from wheel and parts manufacturers who were surprised at the fact that 90% of their OEM orders were for 29″ and the remaining fraction were for 27.5″. They were all rather caught off guard by this."

    https://www.mtb-mag.com/en/opinion-27-5-is-dead/

  85. #285
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    370
    18" frame size was already hard to find anything but 29" wheels when I checked.

    What I have seen, 27.5" bikes allow wider tires to be used for what 26" bikes used to offer, if 26" bikes would be offered with same tire widths and component sets, I don't see why 26" would not sell.

    Riding same bike with 27.5x2.2 wheels and 26x1.9 wheels, I'm just wondering what is the buzz, difference is not huge.

    Riding 29" bike, well quite often I ride at walking speeds or less on some soft stuff and 29er is not floating there either, like smaller ones are not floating, don't get gains from speed differences either.

    Problem for me is this rearward weight balance move that has happened, it is probably good for faster riding, but for my riding I would prefer some 50/50 weight distribution.

    So I do hope some old 26er styled bikes come back with good component sets and good wheels, but I think 26 is not coming back, it is fashion driven business and 29 is going to be only option for most bicycle buyers for coming years.

    I think it is fatbike for me in future, might suit better for my kind of riding.
    Trek 3700 Disc, frame, wheelset, seatpost, fork and rear brake original, rest is upgraded.

  86. #286
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mtbmike24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by slimat99 View Post
    Here's the best case I've head for 26" coming back. I'm not saying 26" is coming back because of these rumors, but if these rumors are accurate, we will be back to 26 and 29 for the most part. The following is from the linked article below.

    "I’ve had a handful of conversations with folks on the product side who have all essentially told me that the end of 27.5″ is near. It was hard to believe at first, but the claims were validated across a few brands who manufacture various products. Starting with a couple of bike brands, I was told that virtually everything is going 29″ for next year and that 27.5″ will be offered for some smaller sizes and women’s models. Then to back this up, I heard the same thing from wheel and parts manufacturers who were surprised at the fact that 90% of their OEM orders were for 29″ and the remaining fraction were for 27.5″. They were all rather caught off guard by this."

    https://www.mtb-mag.com/en/opinion-27-5-is-dead/
    Interesting the article brings up a point I realized right away but never really brought it up in fear of making everyone butt hurt.

    It states when 29ers first came out and were being mass marketed to everyone with a pulse that they were the greatest thing ever.

    The article specifically states they road like shit... This is the same thing I thought as well. Wheels were flexy frames were flexy and had bad geometry and the bikes were very heavy and they just felt weird and definitely had deficiencies. You would never know it based on all the early BS marketing.

    Everyone was duped in believing they were the best thing ever made. Some of the early YouTube videos were the worst and very suspect and ridiculously lop sided it was almost comical and I lost a lot of respect for some of the journalist from major bike magazines. It was something that had to be done in order to have 29er take over and it worked.

    Then Mr. Make Piece guy gets on the internet and says "don't worry what anybody else rides just ride what you want and be happy I don't understand why your so upset".

    The problem with that statement is the bike industry was taking away what I like to ride and not replacing it. Pretty much dropped it like a hot rock with biased marketing like I described above.

    Fast forward to today and 29ers are much improved and I can definitely see advantages over 26 but 26ers are great and just as capable as 29ers imo.

    Really at the end of the day it's rider skill and fitness that makes the real difference and nothing else.

    For the sake of the subject at hand I personally believe 26 is done for at least my life time and don't see it ever coming back but who really knows. Nothing really surprises me anymore.


    Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  87. #287
    Ride what you like!
    Reputation: MattiThundrrr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    331
    Trails didn't get sanitized for 26ers. They got smoothed out for low bottom brackets and long wheelbases on the new geo big bikes. Ironic that the "increased roll over" required that, no?
    The revolution starts now
    When you rise above your fear
    And tear the walls around you down
    The revolution starts here

  88. #288
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,963
    Quote Originally Posted by MattiThundrrr View Post
    Trails didn't get sanitized for 26ers. They got smoothed out for low bottom brackets and long wheelbases on the new geo big bikes. Ironic that the "increased roll over" required that, no?
    Trail sanitation has nothing to do with wheel size or geo.

    It was going on (and being argued over) back in the day when we were all on old geo 26ers.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  89. #289
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mtbmike24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta View Post
    Trail sanitation has nothing to do with wheel size or geo.

    It was going on (and being argued over) back in the day when we were all on old geo 26ers.
    True statement

    Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  90. #290
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    694
    Welp, I still have a pretty damn nice riding 26er in the garage, so who knows, maybe I'll be a trend setter in my 80's, if I make that far!
    @Mattithunder, that was a very insightful article, but I'm really not surprised a bit.
    -Ray.

  91. #291
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,786
    Quote Originally Posted by mtbmike24 View Post
    True statement

    Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
    Yeah, dumbing down was always a thing but it's never been this extreme. It's ironic that trail sanitization dramatically ramped up along side bigger wheels and aggressive geo. We should have seen the opposite trend. The facts are the proliferation of bigger wheels is perfectly correlated with easier trails. Regardless of whether wheel size actually played a roll, it's where we are now. Bums me out. I hope we get back to hand built, skinny trails that maintain the natural character of the terrain, instead of mowing down everything with a trail machine, rock ramping every ledge, and widening corners so a stretched limo 29'er can handle it.

  92. #292
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mtbmike24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by slimat99 View Post
    Yeah, dumbing down was always a thing but it's never been this extreme. It's ironic that trail sanitization dramatically ramped up along side bigger wheels and aggressive geo. We should have seen the opposite trend. The facts are the proliferation of bigger wheels is perfectly correlated with easier trails. Regardless of whether wheel size actually played a roll, it's where we are now. Bums me out. I hope we get back to hand built, skinny trails that maintain the natural character of the terrain, instead of mowing down everything with a trail machine, rock ramping every ledge, and widening corners so a stretched limo 29'er can handle it.
    Good points

    Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  93. #293
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,786
    Quote Originally Posted by mtbmike24 View Post
    Interesting the article brings up a point I realized right away but never really brought it up in fear of making everyone butt hurt.

    It states when 29ers first came out and were being mass marketed to everyone with a pulse that they were the greatest thing ever.

    The article specifically states they road like shit... This is the same thing I thought as well. Wheels were flexy frames were flexy and had bad geometry and the bikes were very heavy and they just felt weird and definitely had deficiencies. You would never know it based on all the early BS marketing.

    Everyone was duped in believing they were the best thing ever made. Some of the early YouTube videos were the worst and very suspect and ridiculously lop sided it was almost comical and I lost a lot of respect for some of the journalist from major bike magazines. It was something that had to be done in order to have 29er take over and it worked.

    Then Mr. Make Piece guy gets on the internet and says "don't worry what anybody else rides just ride what you want and be happy I don't understand why your so upset".

    The problem with that statement is the bike industry was taking away what I like to ride and not replacing it. Pretty much dropped it like a hot rock with biased marketing like I described above.

    Fast forward to today and 29ers are much improved and I can definitely see advantages over 26 but 26ers are great and just as capable as 29ers imo.

    Really at the end of the day it's rider skill and fitness that makes the real difference and nothing else.

    For the sake of the subject at hand I personally believe 26 is done for at least my life time and don't see it ever coming back but who really knows. Nothing really surprises me anymore.


    Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
    I think it's pretty well accepted now that early 29'ers rode like crap for anything other than logging miles and going straight. There was an interview with Rob Roskopp, former owner of Santa Cruz, who said SC would never make 29'ers because they sucked. In addition to actual handling characteristics, 29'ers simply were not cool. It's pretty amazing how 29'ers and MTB culture towards them has changed. Given that, there's no telling what MTB culture will be like regarding 26" in the coming years. Based on the vital survey, rumors from the manufacturing side, and what the bike media has been focusing on it's looking like 650b will be fazed out. There's zero chance 26" is dying out for SS, DJ, FR... It's looking like a tough argument to make that we won't be back to 26 and 29 soon. The wild card is what will MTB culture be like in regards to 26? Right now 26 coming back is laughable. People make fun of 26". Similar stuff to 29'ers before they become cool.

    My money is on there being a movement for playful bikes after a year or two of 29'ers occupying 95% of the mainstream market. No matter what anyone says about 29'ers being fun, agile... they don't come remotely close to 26'ers when it comes to that stuff, and 26'er are far from slow when piloted by a rider that knows how to work small wheels. I don't see 650b playing much of a role other than for mullets, and size S bikes that are really designed to ride like 29'ers for shorties. 29 and 26 play bikes as early as 2021! 650b will probably be made fun of as being so 2015. worst of both worlds! I for one will be scooping up old stock 650b stuff lol.

  94. #294
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mtbmike24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by slimat99 View Post
    I think it's pretty well accepted now that early 29'ers rode like crap for anything other than logging miles and going straight. There was an interview with Rob Roskopp, former owner of Santa Cruz, who said SC would never make 29'ers because they sucked. In addition to actual handling characteristics, 29'ers simply were not cool. It's pretty amazing how 29'ers and MTB culture towards them has changed. Given that, there's no telling what MTB culture will be like regarding 26" in the coming years. Based on the vital survey, rumors from the manufacturing side, and what the bike media has been focusing on it's looking like 650b will be fazed out. There's zero chance 26" is dying out for SS, DJ, FR... It's looking like a tough argument to make that we won't be back to 26 and 29 soon. The wild card is what will MTB culture be like in regards to 26? Right now 26 coming back is laughable. People make fun of 26". Similar stuff to 29'ers before they become cool.

    My money is on there being a movement for playful bikes after a year or two of 29'ers occupying 95% of the mainstream market. No matter what anyone says about 29'ers being fun, agile... they don't come remotely close to 26'ers when it comes to that stuff, and 26'er are far from slow when piloted by a rider that knows how to work small wheels. I don't see 650b playing much of a role other than for mullets, and size S bikes that are really designed to ride like 29'ers for shorties. 29 and 26 play bikes as early as 2021! 650b will probably be made fun of as being so 2015. worst of both worlds! I for one will be scooping up old stock 650b stuff lol.
    I hope your right. However it doesn't really matter much for me as I think I'm set with 4 high end 26ers a hard tail single speed. A all carbon XTR 2x10 trek 9.9 elite a all carbon XTR full suspension Zaskar team 100 and Ellsworth sub22 1x10. As long as I can still get tires I'm good.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  95. #295
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,963

    Will the 26er ever rise from the ashes?

    Quote Originally Posted by slimat99 View Post
    I think it's pretty well accepted now that early 29'ers rode like crap for anything other than logging miles and going straight. s before they become cool.
    I don’t think that is well accepted at all. I think opinions differ now just as they did then.

    If I had to choose an HT from 2006 it would abso-freaking-lutely be a 29er.

    The first rock garden I hit on my 2006 Karate Monkey made me a believer. Sure the geo still had bugs to work out, but I would still take that bike over any 26er HT I had ridden. And this is for tight old-school singletrack.

    I never found a FS 29er I was interested in (though I have not looked in the past 6 years), but for HT I was fully on board after just one ride, and would do it all over again.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  96. #296
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,786
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta View Post
    I don’t think that is well accepted at all. I think opinions differ now just as they did then.

    If I had to choose an HT from 2006 it would abso-freaking-lutely be a 29er.

    The first rock garden I hit on my 2006 Karate Monkey made me a believer. Sure the geo still had bugs to work out, but I would still take that bike over any 26er HT I had ridden. And this is for tight old-school singletrack.

    I never found a FS 29er I was interested in (though I have not looked in the past 6 years), but for HT I was fully on board after just one ride, and would do it all over again.
    We also used to hand build trails which kept width in check and maintained natural terrain compared to today's trail machine built trails.

    Opinions will always vary. I know you're not the only one that liked old 29'ers. Just because you would choose a crappy 29'er over a crappy 26'er doesn't change anything. Geo makes bikes, not wheels size. You can have poor handing bikes with any wheel size. 29' wheels most certainly aren't immune from poor designs. We can all learn to cope with whatever drawbacks our bikes might have. Being able to do things people say any given bike sucks at means nothing. We overemphasize things bikes do poorly anyway. old 29'ers sucking compared to new is relative. A good rider can kill it on an old 29'er no problems, but I would still say they sucked compared to today's bikes.

  97. #297
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,963
    Quote Originally Posted by slimat99 View Post
    We also used to hand build trails which kept width in check and maintained natural terrain compared to today's trail machine built trails.

    Opinions will always vary. I know you're not the only one that liked old 29'ers. Just because you would choose a crappy 29'er over a crappy 26'er doesn't change anything. Geo makes bikes, not wheels size. You can have poor handing bikes with any wheel size. 29' wheels most certainly aren't immune from poor designs. We can all learn to cope with whatever drawbacks our bikes might have. Being able to do things people say any given bike sucks at means nothing. We overemphasize things bikes do poorly anyway. old 29'ers sucking compared to new is relative. A good rider can kill it on an old 29'er no problems, but I would still say they sucked compared to today's bikes.
    I am unsure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me

    I was responding to the claim that early 29ers rode like crap, and the assertion that it is now widely accepted that they did. In that context, what matters is to me is how they compared to 26ers of the time, not bikes of today.

    Wheelsize and geo BOTH make a difference. It is not either/or. But I will say that no geometry tweek would make me want a 26er HT over a 29er HT. Even an older 29er HT.
    Last edited by kapusta; 3 Weeks Ago at 07:56 PM.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  98. #298
    Music & Bikes
    Reputation: fokof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,545
    Everything is relative : each time I take my 700 wheeled MTB (2018 model) , I abso-****ing-lutly hate the Boat anchor/slugishness feeling of handling in more technical section compared to my 26er. (2015 model)

    That bike makes for an excellent spare bike.

    Relativity is still a theory though , not a law
    "There is a big difference between kneeling down and bending over" -FZ

  99. #299
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    370
    Between 27.5" and 26" I have around 10mm difference in trail, 2mm in offset and 26" is much more stable at speeds where grandma passes me limping (that is under 3mph which is where I spend most of the time when pedaling).

    So 27.5" has 10mm more trail and 2mm more offset, but it just absolutely refuses to go straight at slow speeds. Other measurements are pretty much the same, seat tube is shorter in 27.5" as it is 18 inch frame, while 26" is 19.5 frame, but top tube, chain stays, headtube angle etc. all are same.
    Seattube angle is different, but I just have to set saddle 2cm more forwards to match knee-pedal position of 26".

    27.5" is a rut radar, even the slightest of rut bumps steering and jolts my balance at slow speeds, 26" wins a lot there.

    Going speeds above 10mph, not sure if there is much difference, 26" just have this feeling of auto steer where it goes where I point without effort, while 27.5" is not trust inspiring, but most of the time no drama, even steering goes from side to side lot more without me wanting to steer.

    29" has probably even more trail which makes handling suck in slow speeds as well as ruts and alike will be a pain (unless they don't run along the riding path, hitting rut 90 degree angle surely is better with 29"), long trail is cause of flip flop wheel at slow speeds and that sucks.

    Considering 26" bike has already 76mm of trail and 27.5" bike has motorbike territory of 86mm of trail, this trend is alarming.
    Also that is quite small change in amount of trail that does make clear difference.

    Would prefer more offset or steeper head tube angles at least, but it seems modern bikes are made for people who ride downhills mostly, so even at low cost segment bikes have changed to less fun for slow riding.

    26" wheel at front of 27.5" bike actually seems to improve handling, front axle drops about an inch with not so tall 26" tire and that shortens trail a bit, also weight moves tiny bit more forwards.

    Surely not all 27.5" bikes are same, like not all 29" bikes are same, but I would really like to see some wide rubber 26" that has short trail and generous offset, rider position should be bit more forwards too to get more weight on front tire.

    Certainly not a DH bike, but for my slow riding that kind of bike would work miles better than modern stuff.
    Trek 3700 Disc, frame, wheelset, seatpost, fork and rear brake original, rest is upgraded.

  100. #300
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    733
    The answer to the original question is simple. No, the 26-er will never 'rise from the ashes'. Anyone who thinks it will is dreaming.

  101. #301
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mtbmike24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by Skooks View Post
    The answer to the original question is simple. No, the 26-er will never 'rise from the ashes'. Anyone who thinks it will is dreaming.
    Doesn't matter much too me I will ride my 26 until I can't buy tires anymore. I refuse to ever give another bike company my money thanks to bike manufactures telling me I can't ride 26 anymore and that I have to ride 29 inch if I want the latest and greatest.

    I learned how to build bikes because of this and I have become quite good at it. I built my son a 2x10 Marin 26er at 8 years old 4'3" tall. bike weights 27 lbs and has tons of gears and index shifters and hydro brakes guess what he still rides it and it's almost 3 years old now and can easily go another summer on it and when he out grows it I will simply transfer all the parts to a larger frame. The frame of his current bike cost me 30 bucks and it was brand new.

    If and when the time comes I will build my own 29er or 27.5 out of used parts and never support the bike companies as long as I live because they seem to think I should be riding something I don't like and took my choice away.





    Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  102. #302
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mtbmike24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    149
    2 summers my neighbor and I went riding we were meeting his friend who
    Apparently rides a lot.
    One hour into the ride I was spanking him bad and he actually told me I had a unfair advantage on this trail because of the bike I was riding I was on my Trek elite 9.9 I just laughed and said yep. Truth is it was probably a little bit of both but fitness was the biggest difference.
    I'm not going to sit here and say 29er are sluggish and slow because I have been passed by some fast dudes in really technical sections on them but I do my fair bit of passing as well. It's so much rider skill and fitness more than anything.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  103. #303
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    12
    I just picked up my 2nd Ibis mojo-slr after selling mine in 2014. I put on newer brakes and rear shock and it preforms just as good as anything on the market today with a few pounds less! 27.1 (27.5) was a mistake IMO 26 is lighter weight and better for the short folks. I will always love my 29in hardtails tho!

  104. #304
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    253
    I can't imagine having to transition from a 24" wheel bike over to 27.5, or even worse, 29, when you are in that tweener middle school age.

    My 11 y.o. rode his first pedal-bike for 1 year when he was 5, got a new 20" bike when he turned 8, and outgrew that in 2 seasons. Used 26" bikes were more affordable and it was a no-brainer to get him on a Diamondback Splinter 24. After 2 years, we got a pair of light, XC 26" wheels. Then he spent a year on 26 on the same bike and had his best climbing days. He also ran it reverse mullet but got more pedal strikes aqq

    This August, the boy got on a brand new (albeit heading toward obsolescence) Yeti SB5 with 27.5 carbon wheels. He just measured 5'2" tall which is the lowest height recommended for this S frame. Shame Yeti for what seems to be popular to do by the masses these days, but they designed their XS and S frames to get more smaller & possibly younger riders on a hi-po quiver killer- running on 650b wheels...

  105. #305
    Sneaker man
    Reputation: mik_git's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,086
    Quote Originally Posted by Staktup View Post
    Shame Yeti for what seems to be popular to do by the masses these days, but they designed their XS and S frames to get more smaller & possibly younger riders on a hi-po quiver killer- running on 650b wheels...
    Pretty sure Yeti were one of the first to do this, they resisted going to 27.5 for a long while and when they did they went this way...it was the big companies that jumped on the bandwagon some time later.
    All the gear and no idea.

  106. #306
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    12,648
    Quote Originally Posted by Staktup View Post
    I can't imagine having to transition from a 24" wheel bike over to 27.5, or even worse, 29, when you are in that tweener middle school age.
    Luckily for the young ones some manufactures still make 26" wheeled bikes for kids.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  107. #307
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 802spokestoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by smokehouse4444 View Post
    This picture sums up the debate for me:

    Here in New England, if I had to borrow a bike for a week, I'm taking that yeti all day, everyday...Different strokes for different folks though

  108. #308
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 802spokestoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by 93EXCivic View Post
    Then why are dirt jumpers still using 26in wheels...
    Most of the kids at our jumps ride 20's.

    Danny Macaskill is on 24's most of the time.

    Kona killed the shonky

  109. #309
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    729
    Quote Originally Posted by 802spokestoke View Post
    Most of the kids at our jumps ride 20's.

    Danny Macaskill is on 24's most of the time.

    Kona killed the shonky
    20in is a BMX size. Danny Macaskill rides a 24in trials bike not a dirt jumper and so what on Kona.

    Most dirt jump bikes are 26in and tons of companies still make them. There are a 24in bikes but they aren't overly common due to lack of forks.
    Ragley Big Wig, Sunday Soundwave (BMX), 91 Schwinn High Plain (single speed "gravel" bike), Nashbar CXSS (workout)

  110. #310
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mtbmike24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by Staktup View Post
    I can't imagine having to transition from a 24" wheel bike over to 27.5, or even worse, 29, when you are in that tweener middle school age.

    My 11 y.o. rode his first pedal-bike for 1 year when he was 5, got a new 20" bike when he turned 8, and outgrew that in 2 seasons. Used 26" bikes were more affordable and it was a no-brainer to get him on a Diamondback Splinter 24. After 2 years, we got a pair of light, XC 26" wheels. Then he spent a year on 26 on the same bike and had his best climbing days. He also ran it reverse mullet but got more pedal strikes aqq

    This August, the boy got on a brand new (albeit heading toward obsolescence) Yeti SB5 with 27.5 carbon wheels. He just measured 5'2" tall which is the lowest height recommended for this S frame. Shame Yeti for what seems to be popular to do by the masses these days, but they designed their XS and S frames to get more smaller & possibly younger riders on a hi-po quiver killer- running on 650b wheels...
    I built this bike up for my boy he went from 20 inch to 26 inch. He was 9 when I built it for him he's 12 now and a bit on the short side still at 4'9 but it fits him we just need to raise the seat. He probably has at least 1 more year on this maybe 2 and then I have a bigger full suspension frame waiting for him to transfer all these parts to it.

    All his friends bikes are crap and not very good at all. Very heavy flexy and cheap.
    I found a brand new 13.5 inch 26er Marin frame on eBay brand new for 30 bucks 3 years ago that included a bottom bracket and headset.

    I bought a 2x crank 39-22 for 40 bucks and 11-36 cassette in the rear. Deore Index shifters not stupid grip shift and Julie hydro front brakes I also have the rear but this frame will only accept rim brakes in the rear they will go on his next frame.
    Bike cost me 330 bucks to build from the wheels up thanks to the masses thinking 26 is obsolete.
    The bike weighs 27 lbs and has all the gearing he needs. He's already been riding it for 3 years.

    We put the seat all the way down and my sisters 8 year old was riding it and he was blown away. Here is a picture of him at 8 years old riding it he is about 4'4 maybe 4'5 in this picture. You can actually see the grin on his face as he's riding lol. His current bike is a 20 inch.

    The wheel in the front is off of one of my bikes at the time of the picture because my son left the bike behind his friends mom's car and she ran over the front wheel and ruined it so I had to steel mine and put it on so he could ride it. He loves to ride my sons bike and so do all his friends.

    If you have the ability you would do yourself a big favor learning how to build your own bikes and free yourself from the death grip of bike manufactures.

    When my son out grows this frame I will post it up for sale it's a great frame.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  111. #311
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    694
    When the last 26er finally breaks, this thread will die.

  112. #312
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    161

    ... and if we just ...

    Why people so obsessed with wheel size of the mtb?

    Cars have gazzillione of wheel sizes per each manufactured unit, mx the same;

    You are buying system as the whole to perform specific task, why are you care about wheel size/ bar diameter/ hub width/ wtf other dimension??

    I do have several bikes with 14, 16, 20, 24, 26, 27,5 etc wheel sizes each dos specific job;

    In case i’ll purchase next one, wheel size will be the last one thing i’ll think about

  113. #313
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mtbmike24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick_M View Post
    Why people so obsessed with wheel size of the mtb?

    Cars have gazzillione of wheel sizes per each manufactured unit, mx the same;

    You are buying system as the whole to perform specific task, why are you care about wheel size/ bar diameter/ hub width/ wtf other dimension??

    I do have several bikes with 14, 16, 20, 24, 26, 27,5 etc wheel sizes each dos specific job;

    In case i’ll purchase next one, wheel size will be the last one thing i’ll think about
    Because your lungs and legs are the motor of the bike the balance and skill are you as well. That bike can't move or balance without a rider not same regarding vehicles with motors. With regards to motocross, well you don't have to worry about the biggest part of riding a bike (a motor) and skill plays the biggest difference.

    Factor this in then it matters depending on were and how you ride. Lots of people still prefer 26inch wheels depending on there size and riding style and terrain they are riding. Despite what everyone has been led to believe 26 still has advantages over 29 in areas. I see it practically every time I ride.

    The bike industry has decided that everyone should be riding 29 inch wheels regardless of height, male, female, young, old, expert, or novice or skill level as well as in every condition. That's just ignorant and it pissed people off.


    Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  114. #314
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,963
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick_M View Post
    Why people so obsessed with wheel size of the mtb?
    Perhaps because....
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick_M View Post
    wheel sizes each dos specific job;
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  115. #315
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mtbmike24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta View Post
    Perhaps because....

    Right!! The fact there is any obsession or debate at all regarding wheel size is directly related to the lack of choice which the bike industry forced upon the consumer.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  116. #316
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Joe_510's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,117
    Close friend of mine was a 26" wheel-ite for years. He finally got a Transition Sentinel. GUESS WHO LIKES 27.5 NOW?!
    East Bay Parks AKA East Bay Cattle Ranches

  117. #317
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    32
    I STRONGLY BELIEVE that 26 wheels\bikes should be given a second chance...

    1. 26 wheels are stronger...
    2. 26 wheels are stiffer...
    3. The advent of plus tyres gives 26 wheels more rollover ability...
    4. Said advent also gives better grip from the wider contact patch...
    5. 26 wheels are lighter than larger ones with the same components(generally)...
    6. Any point I may have forgot...

    I really wish MTB manufacturers would introduce a 26 Plus bike... #DontGiveUpOn26

  118. #318
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe_510 View Post
    Close friend of mine was a 26" wheel-ite for years. He finally got a Transition Sentinel. GUESS WHO LIKES 27.5 NOW?!
    Isn't a Sentinel a 29er?

  119. #319
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    7
    One of the problems with these types of threads is that it seems that few of those contributing have actually gone and bought a bike with 29" or 27.5" wheels.

    My garage currently contains bikes of the three wheel sizes and the reality is I only use my 26" wheels at the bike park or pump track. I've tried to take them out on real trail rides, but I'm just over it. My 26" Santa Cruz Nomad C (ie the loaner) has hung on the wall for over two years now and is getting listed on Craig's List for dirt cheap.

    I have a 29" for when I want to go fast - IE, I'm riding with my racer buddies - and I'm getting another 27.5" bike for when I just want the best of both worlds. The chatter about 27.5" going away is just silly.

  120. #320
    No Reputation!
    Reputation: Fastskiguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,710
    Aren't 26" wheels and 27.5" wheels damn near the same size?

    I admit...when I switched from 26 to 29 back in the 90's my climbing went to shit.

    I'm 6' 4" just for reference.

  121. #321
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mtbmike24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by Fastskiguy View Post
    Aren't 26" wheels and 27.5" wheels damn near the same size?

    I admit...when I switched from 26 to 29 back in the 90's my climbing went to shit.

    I'm 6' 4" just for reference.
    Yes 25mm difference between the 2 rim sizes.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  122. #322
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    32
    The difference that matters is a 12.7mm difference in wheel & hence tyre radius - where 29ers are 31.5mm more than 26 wheels of the same tyre size...

  123. #323
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    32
    Performance isn't everything for everyone...

    Just because a 29 & 650B wheel may have advantages over a 26 wheel, doesn't mean that everyone HAS to get them...

    We also have the right not to get them - but the industry isn't recognising that right...

    & I am certain that you would not appreciate being forced to buy something - when you'd prefer something else - just because other people made a choice to do something that suits them...

  124. #324
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    12,648
    Quote Originally Posted by Fastskiguy View Post
    Aren't 26" wheels and 27.5" wheels damn near the same size?

    I admit...when I switched from 26 to 29 back in the 90's my climbing went to shit.

    I'm 6' 4" just for reference.


    They're so close that they're damn near the same yet so different that one is nimble and the other is a slug.

    Did they even have 29'ers in the 90's? Why did you let your climbing go to shit?
    I brake for stinkbugs

  125. #325
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mtbmike24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by Bermstyle View Post
    One of the problems with these types of threads is that it seems that few of those contributing have actually gone and bought a bike with 29" or 27.5" wheels.

    My garage currently contains bikes of the three wheel sizes and the reality is I only use my 26" wheels at the bike park or pump track. I've tried to take them out on real trail rides, but I'm just over it. My 26" Santa Cruz Nomad C (ie the loaner) has hung on the wall for over two years now and is getting listed on Craig's List for dirt cheap.

    I have a 29" for when I want to go fast - IE, I'm riding with my racer buddies - and I'm getting another 27.5" bike for when I just want the best of both worlds. The chatter about 27.5" going away is just silly.
    If you want to go fast you ride your 29er... humm well I will keep this short Nino Shurters Scott scale 700 cross country bikes tire size was a Dugast Tubular FastBird 50mm 27.5x1.95 tire and his bike weighed 17.8 lbs. It's the same damn tire size as a 26x2.3
    I think we can put to rest wheel size doesn't make you slow and basically doesn't even make this a debate anymore.
    He won and and won big on a 26 inch wheel and guess what when Scott finally was able to make him happy in 2015/16 with a 29er he still won. Go ahead and keep believing what the industry is trying to sell you for me there is zero reason to move to 29er I will always put fitness and skill above everything else.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  126. #326
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    32
    I don't imitate people - I do what I want...

    I do not have to be the fastest rider - I am not a professional racer...

    I want to ride 26 plus bikes - but the majority of mankind is soo content by following\being led by others, I am being forced to ride with bigger wheels because said majority's wants & needs are what the industry dictates...

    This......'crap'......has to stop...

  127. #327
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mtbmike24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by PDXooo View Post
    I don't imitate people - I do what I want...

    I do not have to be the fastest rider - I am not a professional racer...

    I want to ride 26 plus bikes - but the majority of mankind is soo content by following\being led by others, I am being forced to ride with bigger wheels because said majority's wants & needs are what the industry dictates...

    This......'crap'......has to stop...
    My very same frustration. But I'm not going to listen to people say 26 wheels are slow and that there kids bikes it's a jab below the belt and a ignorant statement when the rider is the one making the bike move.
    One of the biggest pushes for 29inch wheels is they are superior mostly in speed. It's more complicated than that.

    Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

  128. #328
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,230
    Quote Originally Posted by PDXooo View Post
    I don't imitate people - I do what I want...

    I do not have to be the fastest rider - I am not a professional racer...

    I want to ride 26 plus bikes - but the majority of mankind is soo content by following\being led by others, I am being forced to ride with bigger wheels because said majority's wants & needs are what the industry dictates...

    This......'crap'......has to stop...
    LOL!

    I ride 24.85" wheels. 26" wheels are for followers!!!
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  129. #329
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    9

    Specialized 26 Plus before it's time

    Quote Originally Posted by PDXooo View Post
    I STRONGLY BELIEVE that 26 wheels\bikes should be given a second chance...

    1. 26 wheels are stronger...
    2. 26 wheels are stiffer...
    3. The advent of plus tyres gives 26 wheels more rollover ability...
    4. Said advent also gives better grip from the wider contact patch...
    5. 26 wheels are lighter than larger ones with the same components(generally)...
    6. Any point I may have forgot...

    I really wish MTB manufacturers would introduce a 26 Plus bike... #DontGiveUpOn26
    They already did.
    Specialized HardRock circa 2007-2008 has HUGE tire clearance. My wife has a small frame running 26x2.8 WTB Trail Boss and still has room for mud. Best Upgrade since the dropper post. Great bike. I'm looking for a large frame to do the same thing.

    And the Surly Instigator. And the Jamis Dragonfly.

  130. #330
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    32
    &......full suspension bikes dude... O.O #ComeOn

  131. #331
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    694
    I went for a nice 12 mile scoot on my obsolete 26", single pivot, long travel, (175-180 mm)
    Ellsworth Joker yesterday. I was pleasantly reminded of how quickly those 26" wheels accelerate compared to my 29er, which has the same tires on it. (Both have Maxxis DHF 2.5/ Maxxis Ardent 2.4).
    It was nice until I discovered my hydration pack was outta water. Hence the early turnaround time.

  132. #332
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,786
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    They're so close that they're damn near the same yet so different that one is nimble and the other is a slug.

    Did they even have 29'ers in the 90's? Why did you let your climbing go to shit?
    Funny how that works isn't it. I attribute it to the fact that there's a .5" increase in rollover, but we feel 1" everywhere else. It's an exaggeration to say 26" is nimble, 650b isn't, but I can certainly feel a difference. I can feel a difference in rollover too but for my money, the extra rollover isn't worth the trade. Others will feel differently and welcome that trade, but the facts are we feel the 1" difference in more ways than we feel .5".

  133. #333
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    32
    & what about tyre lag?

    One of the reasons I believe the MTB industry is forcing larger wheel sizes is due to the fact that tyres are routinely being run at lower pressures which - if you think about it - negates the rool over advantage as the tyre sags...

    So a sagging 29 wheel really has the roll over capability of a 27.5 wheel & so on...

    PS: I neither like oversized\heavy wheels, nor running excessively low pressures(tyre abuse)... >.>

  134. #334
    No Reputation!
    Reputation: Fastskiguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,710
    Just to be clear, I'm saying 26" and 650b are close, 26" to 29" is a fair jump in size.

    I think (and this is just opinion) that when there was a huge push to 29" that some companies realized it isn't best for every single thing. Instead of going back to 26" they had to come up with something "better" and thus, the return of the old 650B standard.

    As for climbing, I think (also opinion) that's where you feel the advantages of a lighter, stiffer wheel with less inertia and that's why the 26" feels like it climbs faster. I had a Bike Friday for awhile with the 20" wheels and that little sucker always climbed great.

  135. #335
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    83
    My Mtb history started a few decades ago on 26" tyre bikes and I stuck with that size for a long time (mostly as I tended to not change bikes that often and I had a fat Elvis phase in my 30s). I updated to 650b about 5 years ago replacing my aged Orange X2 with a Ibis HD3 and just recently obtained a 29er Ti hardtail (felt the need to ?) . As I also occasionally ride the missus('s) Transition Covert (26er 2011ish vintage) for maintenance check purposes I have all 3 wheelsizes at my disposal and I tend to ride the same trails on these which tend to err on converted deer trails through trees than anything like a bike park trail is (in my imagination at least) and if I'm honest I feel the differences between these are mostly down to frame geo /size fork length (and fork offset- very important that bit) than the wheelsize debate. My strava times don't vary much between the bikes , or no more than my strava times vary due other stuff like feeling fit or knackered during a ride has on them. Maybe I paying too much attention to the just enjoying the ride rather than the wheel size underneath me to notice ?

  136. #336
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Shredman69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    971

    My 26+ rips!

    Here’s my 26+ Uzzi. 180mm travel front and rear with 2.8 Maxis DHRII. weighs in at 28.5lbs as it sits. Has super wide range gearing so I can climb or bomb anything! I’ll keep it forever and I’ll never buy a 29er. 26 for life!


    Will the 26er ever rise from the ashes?-be459d52-7118-44f0-9573-57218d15da7c.jpgWill the 26er ever rise from the ashes?-d5b52de7-bde4-4caf-8e04-75086ce43a49.jpg
    14 Intense Uzzi
    06 Santa Cruz Nomad
    00 Santa Cruz Bullit
    26er's for life!!!

  137. #337
    Co Springs
    Reputation: bachman1961's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    2,346
    Quote Originally Posted by Radium View Post
    When the last 26er finally breaks, this thread will die.
    Lol, that's not how it works. Say anything catchy, pro 26" or anti 26" years after their "death" and you'll have a tornado of contrary posts three pages long.
    Besides, you called it.
    When the last 26'r breaks sounds a lot like;
    "We think all newer bikes are built better, sturdier and will last longer !!"

    Look at all the love for the vintage stuff that still looks great and held up fine from the mid to late 1980's.
    My 91 Hard Rock isn't old but my 34 year old kid might think so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fastskiguy View Post
    Just to be clear, I'm saying 26" and 650b are close, 26" to 29" is a fair jump in size.
    Also- by a very slim margin, 27'5 plus is very close to the o.d. of a 29. Rev's/mile will be slightly off though.
    "Before you criticize, you should walk a mile in their shoes. You'll be a mile away from them and you have their shoes"

  138. #338
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Shredman69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    971
    Quote Originally Posted by slimat99 View Post
    There's no BS about 26" being lighter. That's like saying it's BS that a 2.3 tire is lighter than a 2.5. All things equal a 26" wheelset with tires will be around .25lbs lighter. While that's not a ton it's worth more to me than .5" bigger attack angle.
    Not only are they lighter, but they’re stronger, stiffer and because they’re lighter and a smaller diameter, they accelerate and brake quicker. And because of all of these, they handle better.
    14 Intense Uzzi
    06 Santa Cruz Nomad
    00 Santa Cruz Bullit
    26er's for life!!!

  139. #339
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Shredman69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    971
    Quote Originally Posted by mtbmike24 View Post
    Right!! The fact there is any obsession or debate at all regarding wheel size is directly related to the lack of choice which the bike industry forced upon the consumer.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

    I agree 100%
    14 Intense Uzzi
    06 Santa Cruz Nomad
    00 Santa Cruz Bullit
    26er's for life!!!

  140. #340
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by PDXooo View Post
    I STRONGLY BELIEVE that 26 wheels\bikes should be given a second chance...

    1. 26 wheels are stronger...
    2. 26 wheels are stiffer...
    3. The advent of plus tyres gives 26 wheels more rollover ability...
    4. Said advent also gives better grip from the wider contact patch...
    5. 26 wheels are lighter than larger ones with the same components(generally)...
    6. Any point I may have forgot...

    I really wish MTB manufacturers would introduce a 26 Plus bike... #DontGiveUpOn26
    26 inch wheel bikes will never be main-stream again no matter what you stongly believe. If you have one and enjoy it, I suggest you ride it for as long as you can, then buy another bike with bigger wheels and enjoy that too!

  141. #341
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Radium View Post
    I went for a nice 12 mile scoot on my obsolete 26", single pivot, long travel, (175-180 mm)
    Ellsworth Joker yesterday. I was pleasantly reminded of how quickly those 26" wheels accelerate compared to my 29er, which has the same tires on it. (Both have Maxxis DHF 2.5/ Maxxis Ardent 2.4).
    It was nice until I discovered my hydration pack was outta water. Hence the early turnaround time.
    Just curious, if you could only have one bike, which one would it be?

  142. #342
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    733
    Anyone who has ridden a current bike with modern geometry will understand just how much better they ride compared to older bikes with shorter, steeper geo. None of these new-school bikes have 26 inch wheels, but so what? I ride bikes for fun, and a modern bike with larger wheels is way more fun, at least for me.

  143. #343
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    12,648
    Shouldn't this thread be in the retro-vintage forum?
    I brake for stinkbugs

  144. #344
    Sneaker man
    Reputation: mik_git's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,086
    Quote Originally Posted by Skooks View Post
    Anyone who has ridden a current bike with modern geometry will understand just how much better they ride compared to older bikes with shorter, steeper geo. None of these new-school bikes have 26 inch wheels, but so what? I ride bikes for fun, and a modern bike with larger wheels is way more fun, at least for me.
    Depends on the person, for me I have all 3 wheel sizes, a bunch of older 26 HT's the one that I have ridden the most in the last bunch of years is my GT Zaskar reissue, that bike is bonkers, i love it, it is SO much fun, I'm just grinning ear to ear every time I get on it, its funtastic...but i can only ride it for so long before my back gives out. A Scott Spark, this is the most un-funtastic bike i have ridden (well since my Specialized Epic), it's comfy for sure, but i dont find it fun at all. I have the ability to ride it for longer than the GT, and it's very capable, but I just don't get a fun thrill from it. My newest is an Intense Sniper, this bike is fast, it good on the uphill, great on the flat, and crazy fast for me on the DH. And that in itself is a lot of fun...that i dont get on the Scott. Its a great bike, but for absolute thrill/fun, the old GT still beats them all.
    All the gear and no idea.

  145. #345
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,535
    I think it’s hysterical that 29ers have been standard equipment on the WCDH circuit for years now, along with 27.5 at Rampage, but buncha dudes on a forum prefer 26” wheels because they’re stronger and stiffer.

  146. #346
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Shredman69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    971
    Quote Originally Posted by evasive View Post
    I think it’s hysterical that 29ers have been standard equipment on the WCDH circuit for years now, along with 27.5 at Rampage, but buncha dudes on a forum prefer 26” wheels because they’re stronger and stiffer.
    Just because 29ers have been on the WCDH for a couple years doesn’t mean it’s by the riders choice. They run what their sponsors give them to ride. The reason lots of them are on mullet bikes is because they don’t want to ride 29ers. And lots of the Rampage guys are still on 26ers, because they prefer them, for a reason. They are stronger and more maneuverable. And the people in this forum, (myself included) who prefer 26ers, ride them because we ride what we like, not what the bike industry and media marketing tells us what we should ride.
    Last edited by Shredman69; 6 Days Ago at 10:28 PM. Reason: Typo
    14 Intense Uzzi
    06 Santa Cruz Nomad
    00 Santa Cruz Bullit
    26er's for life!!!

  147. #347
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    12
    I just got rid of my very capable 26er all mountain rig after holding out for a very long time. Test rode a fair amount of new geo 29ers and only compromise I could find was in super steep slow tech lines. The new frame geo and boost wheels got rid of any of the early gen compromises. I still have a 26 dj bike but for most all mountain I like the wagon wheels. IMO, really think that the engineers have figured it out.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  148. #348
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,535
    Quote Originally Posted by Shredman69 View Post
    Just because 29ers have been on the WCDH for a couple years doesn’t mean it’s by the riders choice. They run what their sponsors give them to ride. The reason lots of them are on mullet bikes is because they don’t want to ride 29ers. And lots of the Rampage guys are still on 26ers, because they prefer them, for a reason. They are stronger and more maneuverable. And the people in this forum, (myself included) who prefer 26ers, ride them because we ride what we like, not what the bike industry and media marketing tells us what we should ride.
    Fine. Nobody argues against riding what you like. But you’re missing the point of my post. Stronger/stiffer is a pointless argument because you aren’t seeing failures in those applications. Clearly the bigger wheels are strong and stiff enough.

  149. #349
    Co Springs
    Reputation: bachman1961's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    2,346
    Quote Originally Posted by evasive View Post
    I think it’s hysterical that 29ers have been standard equipment on the WCDH circuit for years now, along with 27.5 at Rampage, but buncha dudes on a forum prefer 26” wheels because they’re stronger and stiffer.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shredman69 View Post
    Just because 29ers have been on the WCDH for a couple years doesn’t mean it’s by the riders choice. They run what their sponsors give them to ride. The reason lots of them are on mullet bikes is because they don’t want to ride 29ers. And lots of the Rampage guys are still on 26ers, because they prefer them, for a reason. They are stronger and more maneuverable. And the people in this forum, (myself included) who prefer 26ers, ride them because we ride what we like, not what the bike industry and media marketing tells us what we should ride.

    Quote Originally Posted by evasive View Post
    Fine. Nobody argues against riding what you like. But you’re missing the point of my post. Stronger/stiffer is a pointless argument because you aren’t seeing failures in those applications. Clearly the bigger wheels are strong and stiff enough.
    I'd argue there's a few buncha dudes on forums that might not be WCDH racers, riders or sponsored and that could have something to do with preferring, owning or riding ATTW any thing they want.
    Maybe I'm missing it …. what's the connection of the forum dudes to WCDH ? Can't we all just buy and ride what we like ?
    "Before you criticize, you should walk a mile in their shoes. You'll be a mile away from them and you have their shoes"

  150. #350
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,535
    Quote Originally Posted by bachman1961 View Post
    I'd argue there's a few buncha dudes on forums that might not be WCDH racers, riders or sponsored and that could have something to do with preferring, owning or riding ATTW any thing they want.
    Maybe I'm missing it …. what's the connection of the forum dudes to WCDH ? Can't we all just buy and ride what we like ?
    Sure, but you’re missing the point, too.

    Arguing that 26” wheels are better because they’re stiffer and stronger (which has been done several times above) is silly. Because 29” and 27.5” have proved to be stiff and strong enough for the extreme end of the spectrum.

    My point about a bunch of forum posters is that unless you all are 400 lbs, I doubt that you need stiffer and stronger wheels than elite pros.

  151. #351
    Ride what you like!
    Reputation: MattiThundrrr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    331
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    Shouldn't this thread be in the retro-vintage forum?
    Why would a discussion about 26" wheeled bikes not belong in the "26er bikes" forum? Or are you proposing the entire 26er forum be moved to retro?
    The revolution starts now
    When you rise above your fear
    And tear the walls around you down
    The revolution starts here

  152. #352
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    12,648
    Quote Originally Posted by MattiThundrrr View Post
    Or are you proposing the entire 26er forum be moved to retro?

    That seems sensible.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  153. #353
    Co Springs
    Reputation: bachman1961's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    2,346
    Quote Originally Posted by evasive View Post
    Sure, but you’re missing the point, too.

    Arguing that 26” wheels are better because they’re stiffer and stronger (which has been done several times above) is silly. Because 29” and 27.5” have proved to be stiff and strong enough for the extreme end of the spectrum.

    My point about a bunch of forum posters is that unless you all are 400 lbs, I doubt that you need stiffer and stronger wheels than elite pros.
    There are plenty of 26" wheels and they've been around a long, long time. The sport has become more competitive so lighter weight or stronger wheels (not always the same thing) makes sense. Any resolution as to what wheels are stronger is likely a case by case situation IMO. This makes sense though -
    Quote Originally Posted by evasive View Post
    "29” and 27.5” have proved to be stiff and strong enough for the extreme end of the spectrum."
    I might be mistaken but I thought part of the feedback was related to the entire 26" design in including frame as per acceleration, braking and responsive handling or stiffness / strength. Likely, preferences some have or advantages they felt a 26" was for them on the trails they ride / bikes they compared them to. ie: Much of this is / can be our own perspectives and experiences.
    Anything else can be proven or cited by facts if strength is a debate (and thank you for including the source/s in advance).

    As for 400# riders, that's nothing compared to the hits a bike/wheels take in motion countless times a minute in some cases with more 'average rider weights' and not necessarily 400#r's.
    I'm not going to research the era, years or longevity for 26 verses the newer stuff but I don't think 26" went away due to catastrophic failures and weaknesses. That covered a helluva time span though.
    Marketing and engineering favored 27'5 / 29 and the frames they support- It's natural to assume the wheels had to be as good or better in most cases. As always, Everybody enjoy your ride/s & bike/s.

    "Before you criticize, you should walk a mile in their shoes. You'll be a mile away from them and you have their shoes"

  154. #354
    Kilted Cyclist
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    360
    I am in my late 40's and I started riding in late 80's. I missed 26ers because I have 29" inseam when wearing my riding shoes. I have tried and 650b and 29ers but none of the bikes fit me well. Most bikes are designed to fit the average height and most deisgners can figure out how to design bikes for male riders with short inseams when using 650b or 29 wheels.

    Even the bigger wheels are better but the bigger sizes may not work well for smaller riders.
    Norco Threshold Single Speed
    Trek X-Calibur 7
    Bianchi San Jose with riser bar
    Trek Madone
    Kona Dew
    Tomac Taos

  155. #355
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    694
    Quote Originally Posted by Skooks View Post
    Just curious, if you could only have one bike, which one would it be?
    It would be the 29er. It's a 4- bar 120mm travel Ellsworth Evolution. I stuck a 140 mm Fox fork on it to slacken it out a couple degrees, and I can actually ride it on the pavement around here, where our streets are full potholes.
    The Joker is a more "fun" bike, and it does feel more solid on trails, but it but to ride the same stretch of pavement on it really makes it clear that it covers distance much more easily than the Joker does.

    So yeah, it would be the 29er.

  156. #356
    Sneaker man
    Reputation: mik_git's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,086
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    That seems sensible.
    And they would kick it straight back out as anything after 1997 is classed as new and therefore not to be in that forum section
    All the gear and no idea.

  157. #357
    Ride what you like!
    Reputation: MattiThundrrr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    331
    Quote Originally Posted by mik_git View Post
    And they would kick it straight back out as anything after 1997 is classed as new and therefore not to be in that forum section
    Yeah, the cutoff date could use an update.
    The revolution starts now
    When you rise above your fear
    And tear the walls around you down
    The revolution starts here

  158. #358
    Co Springs
    Reputation: bachman1961's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    2,346
    Quote Originally Posted by MattiThundrrr View Post
    Why would a discussion about 26" wheeled bikes not belong in the "26er bikes" forum? Or are you proposing the entire 26er forum be moved to retro?
    I'm a bit confused on that. My screen at top reads-
    Forum
    Classic Mtb bike forums
    26er bikes

    The subject matter at hand !!
    No foul -everything is in it's place just like one would filter search and find.
    "Before you criticize, you should walk a mile in their shoes. You'll be a mile away from them and you have their shoes"

  159. #359
    Ride what you like!
    Reputation: MattiThundrrr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    331
    Yes, all the forums are Classic MTB bike forums. 26er is one sub forum, Vintage, Retro, Classic is another.
    The revolution starts now
    When you rise above your fear
    And tear the walls around you down
    The revolution starts here

  160. #360
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by blizzardpapa View Post
    I am in my late 40's and I started riding in late 80's. I missed 26ers because I have 29" inseam when wearing my riding shoes. I have tried and 650b and 29ers but none of the bikes fit me well. Most bikes are designed to fit the average height and most deisgners can figure out how to design bikes for male riders with short inseams when using 650b or 29 wheels.

    Even the bigger wheels are better but the bigger sizes may not work well for smaller riders.
    I don't know what bikes you have been looking at, but Knolly has some pretty low standover Heights on their bikes.

    https://www.knollybikes.com/size-guide

  161. #361
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,535
    Quote Originally Posted by bachman1961 View Post
    There are plenty of 26" wheels and they've been around a long, long time. The sport has become more competitive so lighter weight or stronger wheels (not always the same thing) makes sense. Any resolution as to what wheels are stronger is likely a case by case situation IMO. This makes sense though -
    I might be mistaken but I thought part of the feedback was related to the entire 26" design in including frame as per acceleration, braking and responsive handling or stiffness / strength. Likely, preferences some have or advantages they felt a 26" was for them on the trails they ride / bikes they compared them to. ie: Much of this is / can be our own perspectives and experiences.
    Anything else can be proven or cited by facts if strength is a debate (and thank you for including the source/s in advance).

    As for 400# riders, that's nothing compared to the hits a bike/wheels take in motion countless times a minute in some cases with more 'average rider weights' and not necessarily 400#r's.
    I'm not going to research the era, years or longevity for 26 verses the newer stuff but I don't think 26" went away due to catastrophic failures and weaknesses. That covered a helluva time span though.
    Marketing and engineering favored 27'5 / 29 and the frames they support- It's natural to assume the wheels had to be as good or better in most cases. As always, Everybody enjoy your ride/s & bike/s.

    What? I don’t follow the points you’re making.

    I made one point. Saying this:

    Quote Originally Posted by PDXooo View Post
    I STRONGLY BELIEVE that 26 wheels\bikes should be given a second chance...

    1. 26 wheels are stronger...
    2. 26 wheels are stiffer...
    Means that 29” and 27.5” wheels aren’t strong or stiff enough. How much stronger do your wheels need to be if they’re strong enough for the WCDH circuit?

    Ride what you like. 26ers ride differently, and if you prefer that, fair enough. But claiming that the larger wheels aren’t strong enough makes no sense when they’re holding up to elite racers on WC tracks.

  162. #362
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,786
    Quote Originally Posted by evasive View Post
    Sure, but you’re missing the point, too.

    Arguing that 26” wheels are better because they’re stiffer and stronger (which has been done several times above) is silly. Because 29” and 27.5” have proved to be stiff and strong enough for the extreme end of the spectrum.

    My point about a bunch of forum posters is that unless you all are 400 lbs, I doubt that you need stiffer and stronger wheels than elite pros.
    I'm sure you understand it's an all things equal thing. No one said 29 can't be made stiff and strong.

    One thing that doesn't get talked about is how 29 requires DH width hub spacing to address lateral flex. 26, and 27 can get away with really narrow spacing which saves weight but most importantly adds clearance. Hope uses 130mm spacing for their enduro 650b bike while allowing for 2.6 tires. 26" naturally resists lateral flex so well we could have desired flex patterns with really narrow spacing. 148 spacing on trail bikes is stupid, and we might be going to 157 lol. Why the industry went boost for 27 is beyond me? People just think wide is cool I guess? And please don't tell me 148 is for tire clearance and chain line. Hope has proven you can have those things with 130mm spacing.

  163. #363
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,963
    Quote Originally Posted by slimat99 View Post
    I'm sure you understand it's an all things equal thing. No one said 29 can't be made stiff and strong.

    One thing that doesn't get talked about is how 29 requires DH width hub spacing to address lateral flex. 26, and 27 can get away with really narrow spacing which saves weight but most importantly adds clearance. Hope uses 130mm spacing for their enduro 650b bike while allowing for 2.6 tires. 26" naturally resists lateral flex so well we could have desired flex patterns with really narrow spacing. 148 spacing on trail bikes is stupid, and we might be going to 157 lol. Why the industry went boost for 27 is beyond me? People just think wide is cool I guess? And please don't tell me 148 is for tire clearance and chain line. Hope has proven you can have those things with 130mm spacing.
    The reason nobody talks about the problem of boost spacing is because it is not a problem. If there is a downside to 148mm spacing, it eludes me.

    A I understand it, in terms of the spacing between the dropouts and width of the hub body, 142TA is actually the same as 135QR. 148mm is only 6mm wider.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  164. #364
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    729
    Quote Originally Posted by evasive View Post
    I think it’s hysterical that 29ers have been standard equipment on the WCDH circuit for years now, along with 27.5 at Rampage, but buncha dudes on a forum prefer 26” wheels because they’re stronger and stiffer.
    You know the winner of Rampage was on 26s right.... As well as quite a few of the other guys.
    Ragley Big Wig, Sunday Soundwave (BMX), 91 Schwinn High Plain (single speed "gravel" bike), Nashbar CXSS (workout)

  165. #365
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,535
    Quote Originally Posted by 93EXCivic View Post
    You know the winner of Rampage was on 26s right.... As well as quite a few of the other guys.
    Not surprising. Rampage runs involve a lot of aerial tricks, and 26” wheels are still standard for that. Maneuvering a bike midair brings different requirements than race runs.

  166. #366
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,786
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta View Post
    The reason nobody talks about the problem of boost spacing is because it is not a problem. If there is a downside to 148mm spacing, it eludes me.

    A I understand it, in terms of the spacing between the dropouts and width of the hub body, 142TA is actually the same as 135QR. 148mm is only 6mm wider.
    The downside is added weight and reduced clearance for your heels and mech/hanger. Many were bending mechs and hangers with 135 so losing any clearance with 148 is moving in the wrong direction. We skim by stuff at the cranks, pedals, and mech all the time. It's easy to write off small numbers like 5mm difference between 175mm and 170mm cranks, but for many it makes all the difference. Same applies to mech clearance. This is why Hope went with 130mm spacing which created substantially more clearance compared to boost. Like 10mm range.

    For 29" wide spacing is mandatory to not have wet noodles for wheels. For 26, we could go as narrow as 130 or less. We could have a nice weight reduction and 10mm or more extra clearance. Maybe you would recognize the downside of 148 if the numbers grew like when comparing Hope's 130mm standard to boost. While the differences now aren't as pronounced, my point is they could be because of the natural traits of 27 and 26 wheels. 29 has no choice but to hang that dangly thing out there. There's your downside. Pretty easy to see when you look at what the different wheel sizes need to have desired flex patterns and durability.

  167. #367
    Co Springs
    Reputation: bachman1961's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    2,346
    Quote Originally Posted by evasive View Post
    What? I don’t follow the points you’re making.
    Just that bikes and wheels size specifics are so variant, it's really tough to generalize and be accurate about which is stronger but as you say, it often doesn't seem to matter. Everything has gotten better (generally).



    Quote Originally Posted by evasive View Post
    But claiming that the larger wheels aren’t strong enough makes no sense when they’re holding up to elite racers on WC tracks.
    Yeah, somebody may have made such a claim but it was not me. No doubt wheel strength differs by many variables but it doesn't seem to be a widespread concern or problem represented here.

    Considerations and some less modern info represented here: Fun reading ? Maybe.

    https://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/wheel_index.html
    "Before you criticize, you should walk a mile in their shoes. You'll be a mile away from them and you have their shoes"

  168. #368
    Ride what you like!
    Reputation: MattiThundrrr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    331
    Although we've already determined that the 27.5 and 29 inch wheels are tough enough for the pros, and thus also for all recreational riders, there is some interesting stuff to be gleaned from Sheldon.

    "Smaller wheels are stiffer than larger wheels. If they are built on the same hubs, then the bracing angle is larger for smaller rims. If everything else is the same, 650C wheels are about 25% stiffer than 700C wheels"
    The revolution starts now
    When you rise above your fear
    And tear the walls around you down
    The revolution starts here

  169. #369
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,786
    Quote Originally Posted by evasive View Post
    Not surprising. Rampage runs involve a lot of aerial tricks, and 26” wheels are still standard for that. Maneuvering a bike midair brings different requirements than race runs.
    Yes, so if 29 is being used for all forms of racing, what's the point of 650b? Oh yeah, it rolls so much faster lol.

  170. #370
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Joe_510's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,117
    Quote Originally Posted by sebbyr View Post
    Isn't a Sentinel a 29er?
    It was a Patrol, my bad.
    East Bay Parks AKA East Bay Cattle Ranches

  171. #371
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,963

    Will the 26er ever rise from the ashes?

    Quote Originally Posted by slimat99 View Post
    The downside is added weight and reduced clearance for your heels and mech/hanger. Many were bending mechs and hangers with 135 so losing any clearance with 148 is moving in the wrong direction. We skim by stuff at the cranks, pedals, and mech all the time. It's easy to write off small numbers like 5mm difference between 175mm and 170mm cranks, but for many it makes all the difference. Same applies to mech clearance. This is why Hope went with 130mm spacing which created substantially more clearance compared to boost. Like 10mm range.

    For 29" wide spacing is mandatory to not have wet noodles for wheels. For 26, we could go as narrow as 130 or less. We could have a nice weight reduction and 10mm or more extra clearance. Maybe you would recognize the downside of 148 if the numbers grew like when comparing Hope's 130mm standard to boost. While the differences now aren't as pronounced, my point is they could be because of the natural traits of 27 and 26 wheels. 29 has no choice but to hang that dangly thing out there. There's your downside. Pretty easy to see when you look at what the different wheel sizes need to have desired flex patterns and durability.
    You need to rethink the logic of your derailleur clearance argument. While boost spacing does push the RD 3mm out, a 29er also raises it around 30mm. So overall, an RD on a boosted 29er has much better clearance than on a non-boosted 26er.

    Weight? The hub is a whopping 6mm wider. The weight penalty for boost is so small as to be irrelevant.

    Heel clearance? Who is having heel clearance issues? Chainstays can easily be shaped to accommodate that.

    Hope’s 130mm rear spacing: the reduction in width is all on the non-drive side. The drive side is the same. It (and the RD) sticks out just as far as on a 148mm rear). Look at a picture from the rear and you’ll see the rear stays are asymmetrical.

    Also, Hope uses that 130 spacing for their 29er. Doesn’t the fact that Hope built a 29er with a 130mm rear spacing kind of negate the argument that 29ers REQUIRE a 148mm rear spacing?

    In any event, I just don’t see what point Hope’s design is proving here.

    I’m sorry but the idea that needing to go boost somehow incurs any meaningful compromises is a bit nonsensical, IMO.
    Last edited by kapusta; 3 Days Ago at 06:51 AM.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  172. #372
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,786
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta View Post
    You need to rethink the logic of your derailleur clearance argument. While boost spacing does push the RD 3mm out, a 29er also raises it around 30mm. So overall, an RD on a boosted 29er has much better clearance than on a non-boosted 26er.

    Weight? The hub is a whopping 6mm wider. The weight penalty for boost is so small as to be irrelevant.

    Heel clearance? Who is having heel clearance issues? Chainstays can easily be shaped to accommodate that.

    Hope’s 130mm rear spacing: the reduction in width is all on the non-drive side. The drive side is the same. It (and the RD) sticks out just as far as on a 148mm rear). Look at a picture from the rear and you’ll see the rear stays are asymmetrical.

    Also, Hope uses that 130 spacing for their 29er. Doesn’t the fact that Hope built a 29er with a 130mm rear spacing kind of negate the argument that 29ers REQUIRE a 148mm rear spacing?

    In any event, I just don’t see what point Hope’s design is proving here.

    I’m sorry but the idea that needing to go boost somehow incurs any meaningful compromises is a bit nonsensical, IMO.
    You misunderstood. My whole argument was based on if smaller wheels used 130mm, and 29'ers 148. I would take it back if 29'ers used narrow spacing like hope's 29'er. I didn't realize they did that. Makes you wonder why boost is said to be mandatory for 29 doesn't it. Anyway, the weight savings between 130 and 148 would be pronounced. 18mm of material in the axle and hub would add up. You haven't changed my mind about mech clearance, 148 sticks it out further than any trail bike standard we've had regardless of wheel size. Raising the mech up via bigger wheels does little to nothing to reduce impacts. When BB's were tall, impacts were still an issue. 148 just exacerbates an issue that's always been there.

    All I'm saying is small wheels would allow us to tuck it in much better than 148. If 29'ers can do the same then my argument is baseless, but as it sits now, the industry is saying 29'ers need wide spacing to match smaller wheel rigidity.

  173. #373
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,963
    Quote Originally Posted by slimat99 View Post
    You misunderstood.
    Internet forum, so par for the course.

    Quote Originally Posted by slimat99 View Post
    My whole argument was based on if smaller wheels used 130mm, and 29'ers 148. I would take it back if 29'ers used narrow spacing like hope's 29'er. I didn't realize they did that. Makes you wonder why boost is said to be mandatory for 29 doesn't it. Anyway, the weight savings between 130 and 148 would be pronounced. 18mm of material in the axle and hub would add up. You haven't changed my mind about mech clearance, 148 sticks it out further than any trail bike standard we've had regardless of wheel size. Raising the mech up via bigger wheels does little to nothing to reduce impacts. When BB's were tall, impacts were still an issue. 148 just exacerbates an issue that's always been there.

    All I'm saying is small wheels would allow us to tuck it in much better than 148. If 29'ers can do the same then my argument is baseless, but as it sits now, the industry is saying 29'ers need wide spacing to match smaller wheel rigidity.
    To be honest, I don't really understand why Hope did what they did. I read that they wanted to make the spoke lacing symmetrical (not offset), but what they seem to have done is just make the non-DS as narrow as the DS. Maybe I am missing something here. It reminds me of what Surly did with the Pugsly.

    I am curious how the 130mm is measured. For example, what we call "135mm" and "142mm" frames are essentially the same overall width, it is just a matter of where the ends of the hub are in the frame. There is no difference in where they place the cassette, Disc, or hub flanges. I am curious how hope measures this.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  174. #374
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,786
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta View Post
    Internet forum, so par for the course.



    To be honest, I don't really understand why Hope did what they did. I read that they wanted to make the spoke lacing symmetrical (not offset), but what they seem to have done is just make the non-DS as narrow as the DS. Maybe I am missing something here. It reminds me of what Surly did with the Pugsly.

    I am curious how the 130mm is measured. For example, what we call "135mm" and "142mm" frames are essentially the same overall width, it is just a matter of where the ends of the hub are in the frame. There is no difference in where they place the cassette, Disc, or hub flanges. I am curious how hope measures this.
    I'm not positive how they measure their spacing? I just remember when 130 first hit the market they talked about mech clearance. I know spec played with 135 spacing for the Demo to save weight and add clearance. To me narrow spacing makes more sense unless wider flanges are required. If 29'ers can get away with the same spacing as 26/27 that's great, but all we hear is how boost is a game changer for 29er's. Too bad Hope hasn't shown data proving they can match boost with 130mm. I don't' think it would matter though because people like wider based on marketing and because it looks totally badass compared to wimpy little 130. If and when we go to 157, there will be a strong argument for the weight and clearance benefits of 130.

  175. #375
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    12,648
    I remember 126mm rear hub spacing, those were the days!
    I brake for stinkbugs

  176. #376
    No Reputation!
    Reputation: Fastskiguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,710
    Yeah for sure guys, the fact that 29" wheels are not as inherently strong as 26" wheels simply doesn't matter, they are strong enough.

    Just like square taper road bb's are strong enough so we don't need those heavy complicated bb "standards" anymore and can just run square tapers these days. Oh wait.....

  177. #377
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    1
    bought 2 months ago some brand new DTSwiss rims 26 and tubeless

  178. #378
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    17
    Wheel size is like ski or snowboard length. 26" will come back around for smaller riders or for people wanting more maneuverability. I don't want long skis or boards for my local Midwest ice patches, I don't want 29" wheels for my tight twisty rooty short up and down Midwest trails. new won't be around until the used market is depleted, then lighter weight more flick-able 26" bikes will appear in the catalogs.

    or rather two frame styles 26+through 27.5 and 27.5+through 29.

    oh wait, where did 26ers go?

    That said I'd strongly consider a 29er if any of my local trail downhills or straights that lasted more than 15 seconds.

    The rest is kinda arm chair engineering nonsense like adding 20 mm longer crown to axle suspension fork is gunna drastically change your bike geometry and BB height, like full extended fork length has much to do with where the fork and/or rear shock is in the travel at a particular moment.

  179. #379
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    30
    Trying to go back on topic:
    I hope 26" wheels don't die, I feel the acceleration is really unique compared to 27.5 or 29. Here in PA most trails are lots of short descents and climbs, 26" wheels can really make a difference. I got the idea to build a 26 rear 27.5 front with modern specs. I found an old 26er frame and the wheel lift in front gives it a reasonable slack head angle, I build it with a Pike and Eagle GX. Finding a reasonable priced rear wheel was indeed a problem, everything stock has quite narrow rims and the hubs have wide engagement, same was true for finding a light and tough tire. It rides great!

    Now I have a 29" Epic a 27.5" Santa Cruz 5010 and the Mini mullet (based on a Fuji Reveal). They all do what one would expect. The 29er keeps the momentum is fast and rolls but sluggish to get up to speed, the 5010 is the do everything fun bike and the Mini mullet is the spring-loaded acceleration machine. I don't care much about times, I more ride bikes like snowboards or skies (the line counts not the time), and all 3 are tons of fun.

    I know it’s an ugly Fuji design but I wouldn't give it away.

    Will the 26er ever rise from the ashes?-img_4418.jpg

  180. #380
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,821
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris_PA View Post
    Trying to go back on topic:
    I hope 26" wheels don't die, I feel the acceleration is really unique compared to 27.5 or 29. Here in PA most trails are lots of short descents and climbs, 26" wheels can really make a difference. I got the idea to build a 26 rear 27.5 front with modern specs. I found an old 26er frame and the wheel lift in front gives it a reasonable slack head angle, I build it with a Pike and Eagle GX. Finding a reasonable priced rear wheel was indeed a problem, everything stock has quite narrow rims and the hubs have wide engagement, same was true for finding a light and tough tire. It rides great!

    Now I have a 29" Epic a 27.5" Santa Cruz 5010 and the Mini mullet (based on a Fuji Reveal). They all do what one would expect. The 29er keeps the momentum is fast and rolls but sluggish to get up to speed, the 5010 is the do everything fun bike and the Mini mullet is the spring-loaded acceleration machine. I don't care much about times, I more ride bikes like snowboards or skies (the line counts not the time), and all 3 are tons of fun.

    I know it’s an ugly Fuji design but I wouldn't give it away.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_4418.jpg 
Views:	11 
Size:	442.6 KB 
ID:	1305601
    Nice looking bike. Is that really a 27.5 front/26" rear? Looks very similar!
    It is the Right of the People to Alter or to Abolish It.

  181. #381
    Co Springs
    Reputation: bachman1961's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    2,346
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris_PA View Post
    Trying to go back on topic:
    I hope 26" wheels don't die, I feel the acceleration is really unique compared to 27.5 or 29. Here in PA most trails are lots of short descents and climbs, 26" wheels can really make a difference.

    I know it’s an ugly Fuji design but I wouldn't give it away.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_4418.jpg 
Views:	11 
Size:	442.6 KB 
ID:	1305601
    Sounds like a sensible strategy for ride areas you have.
    I wouldn't call that bike ugly.
    If not a fan of pop-out colors, that graphic design or yellow, You can do simple to fix it.



    IMO- Whatever happens to 26 in the long term, Marketing will always be testing trying and building bikes or correcting their mistakes to fit and sell bikes to all people of all sizes. Something about money from what I heard.
    "Before you criticize, you should walk a mile in their shoes. You'll be a mile away from them and you have their shoes"

  182. #382
    Ride what you like!
    Reputation: MattiThundrrr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    331
    Quote Originally Posted by Vespasianus View Post
    Nice looking bike. Is that really a 27.5 front/26" rear? Looks very similar!
    Might be because 26 and 27.5 ARE VERY SIMILAR! With the right tire selection, you can almost eliminate the difference. A big 26 and small 27.5 have almost equal diameter when mounted.
    The revolution starts now
    When you rise above your fear
    And tear the walls around you down
    The revolution starts here

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-18-2014, 05:29 PM
  2. From the ashes of a Glory8, the Phoenix rises!
    By Isildur in forum Pivot Cycles
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-18-2011, 11:29 AM
  3. From the ashes, a Phoenix (or two) is born....
    By supermoto in forum Pivot Cycles
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 05-15-2011, 04:11 PM
  4. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust
    By rocketfuel in forum Turner
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-10-2005, 10:56 AM

Members who have read this thread: 749

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.